Texas officials propose Sexting become a class A misdemeanor

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**MeanGreenStompa**

dallasnews wrote:AUSTIN - Moving to curb the growing scourge of "sexting," two top Texas officials announced an effort this week to change state law to crack down on teenagers who send nude cellphone photos of themselves and others.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20101110-Texas-officials-propose-sexting-3358.ece

Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican, and state Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, said they were working together to allow the prosecution of minors on Class A misdemeanor charges instead of the third-degree felony charges they face now.

The felony charges can send youths to a state prison and force them to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.

"Sexting is real. ... It is morally hazardous," said Watson, who said he plans to file a bill to make the change when the Legislature convenes in January.

"One study shows 1 in 5 teenagers has sent a sexually suggestive picture by text ... and 1 in 3 has received such an image," Watson said. "Our laws have not kept up with our technology."

In a 2008 study by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 22 percent of teenage girls who responded said they had been texted or had posed for nude or seminude photos.

Officials said the law that covers sexting was enacted years ago to crack down on child pornography in the possession of adults. It carries a penalty of two to 10 years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine.

Abbott said that in two cases in recent years, a 17-year-old boy was charged with a felony for sending an explicit photo of a 16-year-old girl, and an eighth-grader was jailed overnight for sending suggestive photos. Abbott said he did not know whether either youth went to prison.

Both officials said the change in law would not go easy on sexting but would instead focus prevention and education efforts on teenagers who might not otherwise know how dangerous and harmful the practice is.

Under the proposed change, Watson said, the crime for minors would be punishable by a year in the county jail and up to a $4,000 fine. He and Abbott said probation and restricted cellphone use would be key components for first offenders.

"Studies show that teenaged students are increasingly taking, sending and receiving explicit pictures of themselves on their mobile telephones," Abbott said. "This practice is not just harmful to young Texans, it is potentially illegal."

Mike Ward,

Austin American-Statesman

**DA's Forever**

Unfortunately i doubt it would change much if passed, my generation is incredibly thick skulled.

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

Meh. Don't see how labeling them sex offender is going to prove anything. That's a dumb idea.

**dogma**

This particular legislation isn't meant to stop the behavior, but reduce the penalty.

That being said, I'm still finding myself at a loss to explain who this actually harms.

**DA's Forever**

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Meh. Don't see how labeling them sex offender is going to prove anything. That's a dumb idea.

Indeed if anything it'll screw them over for dumb mistakes as a growing adult/kid

**WarOne**

It is a poor use of cell phone, but I really think better use of their time would be to help better define sexual offender laws rather than target teenagers who sext to other teenagers.

**DA's Forever**

WarOne wrote:It is a poor use of cell phone, but I really think better use of their time would be to help better define sexual offender laws rather than target teenagers who sext to other teenagers.

+1 They Need to make things more clear before they throw more into the pit.

**dogma**

Part of the problem is that there is a large number of people for whom "sex offender" is a berserk button that deactivates the rational part of the mind; making it difficult to get good, solid legislation written.

Not much sense can arise from a conversation where any turn of phrase that isn't "Kill them all!" is regarded with suspicion and anger by those who care most about the issue.

**WarOne**

dogma wrote:Part of the problem is that there is a large number of people for whom "sex offender" is a berserk button that deactivates the rational part of the mind; making it difficult to get good, solid legislation written.

Not much sense can arise from a conversation where any turn of phrase that isn't "Kill them all!" is regarded with suspicion and anger by those who care most about the issue.

Agreed.

However, the slow realization that society erred with a broad, sweeping net for these crimes will come at some point. For those families with a sexual predator at the age of 16 or 17, their time for realization has already come.

Further, the branding of sexual offender titles has created even more bizarre responses and pariahood to the select few who earn it (deserved or not).

**Kilkrazy**

Some states have already enacted bills to ignore "sexting" as a crime when it happens among teenagers.

Vermont.

**Frazzled**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
dallasnews wrote:AUSTIN - Moving to curb the growing scourge of "sexting," two top Texas officials announced an effort this week to change state law to crack down on teenagers who send nude cellphone photos of themselves and others.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20101110-Texas-officials-propose-sexting-3358.ece

Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican, and state Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, said they were working together to allow the prosecution of minors on Class A misdemeanor charges instead of the third-degree felony charges they face now.

The felony charges can send youths to a state prison and force them to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.

"Sexting is real. ... It is morally hazardous," said Watson, who said he plans to file a bill to make the change when the Legislature convenes in January.

"One study shows 1 in 5 teenagers has sent a sexually suggestive picture by text ... and 1 in 3 has received such an image," Watson said. "Our laws have not kept up with our technology."

In a 2008 study by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 22 percent of teenage girls who responded said they had been texted or had posed for nude or seminude photos.

Officials said the law that covers sexting was enacted years ago to crack down on child pornography in the possession of adults. It carries a penalty of two to 10 years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine.

Abbott said that in two cases in recent years, a 17-year-old boy was charged with a felony for sending an explicit photo of a 16-year-old girl, and an eighth-grader was jailed overnight for sending suggestive photos. Abbott said he did not know whether either youth went to prison.

Both officials said the change in law would not go easy on sexting but would instead focus prevention and education efforts on teenagers who might not otherwise know how dangerous and harmful the practice is.

Under the proposed change, Watson said, the crime for minors would be punishable by a year in the county jail and up to a $4,000 fine. He and Abbott said probation and restricted cellphone use would be key components for first offenders.

"Studies show that teenaged students are increasingly taking, sending and receiving explicit pictures of themselves on their mobile telephones," Abbott said. "This practice is not just harmful to young Texans, it is potentially illegal."

Mike Ward,

Austin American-Statesman

Make it a capital felony. That'll stop the little

ers...

As the immortal b ard once said: Your sole job as a father is to make sure your daughter never dances on a pole.

**WarOne**

Frazzled wrote:

As the immortal b ard once said: Your sole job as a father is to make sure your daughter never dances on a pole.

What if she decided to be an acrobat and she had to hang precariously from a long pole high in the air?

**Tyyr**

I don't really have any issue with taking a tougher stance on sexting, but putting them on the sex offender's registry? That's going way too far. Nothing like making someone wear a scarlet S for the rest of their lives because of something they do when they're teenagers and by definition idiots.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Make it a capital felony. That'll stop the little ers...

As the immortal b ard once said: Your sole job as a father is to make sure your daughter never dances on a pole.

So you would fully endorse the killing of your son if he received a picture of someone of comparable age?

This isn't just about daughters, old man.

**Tyyr**

The article used examples of people sending images, would it also take in those that receive them?

**WarOne**

Tyyr wrote:The article used examples of people sending images, would it also take in those that receive them?

Technically, if they are in possession of child pornography, I would say lock 'em up under current lawz (then cry at night at the destruction of their youth).

**Tyyr**

Yeah but when you get a text you really don't know what's in it until you look at it. You can't control if your jackass friend sends you a picture of his GF naked. If you've kept it for any amount of time maybe, but it would be bad if he'd made a habit of it and it got you in trouble as well.

**WarOne**

Tyyr wrote:Yeah but when you get a text you really don't know what's in it until you look at it. You can't control if your jackass friend sends you a picture of his GF naked. If you've kept it for any amount of time maybe, but it would be bad if he'd made a habit of it and it got you in trouble as well.

It would be harder to prove about the receiving portion of sext messages.

However, it would not make them immune if found to be getting sext messages; maybe more difficult to prove:

http://www.10news.com/news/26657180/detail.html

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
This isn't just about daughters, old man.

You're just jealous because I get all the good painkillers, legally.

**Tyyr**

WarOne wrote:It would be harder to prove about the receiving portion of sext messages.

However, it would not make them immune if found to be getting sext messages; maybe more difficult to prove:

http://www.10news.com/news/26657180/detail.html

I'm not really suggesting they be immune. Plenty of guys would want to be on a mailing list for that sort of thing but imagine if you didn't want it but your jackass friend kept sending them to you and you kept deleting them. Then the police catch him and round you up because you've been receiving the images he's sending. Suddenly you're on trial for a felony with that big red S hanging over your head. How'd you like to be branded a sex offender for the rest of your life because you had one dumbass friend?

**Melissia**

Better that than label the kids as sex offenders. Or would they still do that?

edit: Nevermind, it would. My state legislature is such fail...

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

I know it could be dangerous in extreme situations, but is sexting even wrong? Maybe they're looking at this the wrong way.

**dogma**

Tyyr wrote:The article used examples of people sending images, would it also take in those that receive them?

Yes, possessing child porn for any reason is a crime. Several underage boys have been charged with possession of child porn because they have received pictures, via text, of nude, underage girls.

**Frazzled**

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I know it could be dangerous in extreme situations, but is sexting even wrong? Maybe they're looking at this the wrong way.

yea its wrong. All those images of the girls can and are used against them for harassment purposes. Thats the real issue.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:You're just jealous because I get all the good painkillers, legally.

I still have an open prescription for Vicodin that was issued when I was 15.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
yea its wrong. All those images of the girls can and are used against them for harassment purposes. Thats the real issue.

So is that extra 10 pounds that some girls gain at various points during their lives, but we don't outlaw that.

Why is nudity different?

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:You're just jealous because I get all the good painkillers, legally.

I still have an open prescription for Vicodin that was issued when I was 15.

Well then share the wealth man!

Vicodin's for wimps. Percodan, is the King's English. As the Immortal Bard once said: Laudinum, its the new black.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
yea its wrong. All those images of the girls can and are used against them for harassment purposes. Thats the real issue.

So is that extra 10 pounds that some girls gain at various points during their lives, but we don't outlaw that.

Why is nudity different?

Because being 10 lbs overweight can't be sent out to all the boys around the school and all over the intranetz, thus destroying the girl's self esteem, making her suicidal (remember ladies the best defense is a good offense why be suicidal when you canbe homicidal!) her future job prospects etc. etc.

EDIT: In truth I could care less about the law. This is a problem, but its easily handled by reminding your kids - "Don't be stupid and put anything up on the internet that would embarass your grandmother or you when your own kids ask you about it."

**Phototoxin**

Sexually suggestive you say? Well I find "
"One study shows 1 in 5 teenagers has sent a sexually suggestive picture by text ... and 1 in 3 has received such an image," Watson said. "Our laws have not kept up with our technology."
" sexually suggestive as the '1 in 3' reminds me of a penis 1 and some boobs 3. I think the reporters should be on the register

/absurdity.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Because being 10 lbs overweight can't be sent out to all the boys around the school and all over the intranetz, thus destroying the girl's self esteem, making her suicidal (remember ladies the best defense is a good offense why be suicidal when you canbe homicidal!) her future job prospects etc. etc.

Uh, yeah, it can. It happened all the time when I was in high school, and I'm sure it happens more now. Adolescent boys are terrible to women in every society on Earth, for lots of very stupid reasons. Just read some comments on Hollywood gossip pages if you want evidence; you'll find a ton of guys calling women like Drew Barrymore ugly. Hell, read the thread here about Sarah Palin.

The matter of job prospects is just our rather incompetent society behaving as though women don't, and shouldn't, do anything related to sex. I'll also add that there are plenty of jobs where a woman's appearance, past and current, is central to her employable status. It happens with men too of course, just not as often.

**Frazzled**

Again, if you're comparing someone saying you're ten lbs overweight, to your (former) boyfriend blasting naked pics of you all over cyberspace, you're having a severe lack of perspective and should consult some women on how they feel about the subject.

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

Frazzled wrote:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I know it could be dangerous in extreme situations, but is sexting even wrong? Maybe they're looking at this the wrong way.

yea its wrong. All those images of the girls can and are used against them for harassment purposes. Thats the real issue.

As a mature adult, if naked pics of me exist outside my own computer, it's because I either incredibly trust where they are or I'm prepared for the pics to "leak" so to speak. As a teenager, the same rules apply. It seems sexting education might be more in order here. "Responsibly" sharing pictures isn't wrong, and shouldn't be punished. I just see more of a "grr, sex is bad" slant coming out of this than anything.