Cornwell John Kip
Seton Hall University School of Law.
SMU Law Rev. 2013;66(1):111-56.
The "cyberworld" in which we live has fundamentally and irrevocably changed the nature of human interaction. For many, electronic mail, texting, and social networking sites have significantly limited traditional face-to-face interaction. While the benefits of technological progress are self-evident, the ease with which people can share personal information virtually has also produced troubling byproducts. The transmission of sexually provocative images between teenagers, known colloquially as "sexting," is one such example. As suicides and other sexting-related tragedies multiply, jurisdictions coast-to-coast are searching frantically for ways to curb the practice. Due to the harshness of existing criminal statutes, legislators have favored the creation of a separate sexting offense to address misconduct. Because these new laws vary greatly in both content and severity of prescribed penalties, some have argued that they are unprincipled. In light of contemporary societal disinterest in prosecuting consensual sexual activity between adolescents, critics also consider them misguided and anachronistic. These allegations suffer from their failure to place anti-sexting initiatives in proper historical context. These laws represent a present-day manifestation of the protectionist and paternalistic impulses that motivated statutory rape laws in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. Both anti-sexting and statutory rape laws share the same fundamental goal: avoiding reputational ruin and its untoward consequences. Whereas sexual intercourse was once the necessary catalyst, electronic devices used to disseminate sexually explicit material now create the risk. In today's virtual world, sexting represents a sort of statutory rape by proxy where cell phones, laptops, and iPads provide the violative act that can ruin lives. In sum, the campaign to outlaw sexting is neither misguided nor anachronistic. It reflects a widespread belief in the need to protect adolescents from sexting-related harm, coupled with a paternalistic desire to restore some of the moral innocence that is rapidly disappearing in the teenage cyberworld.
我们生活的“网络世界”已经从根本上不可逆转地改变了人际互动的本质。对许多人来说，电子邮件、短信和社交网站极大地限制了传统的面对面交流。虽然技术进步的好处不言而喻，但人们在虚拟世界中分享个人信息的便捷也产生了一些令人不安的副产品。青少年之间传播具有性暗示的图片，俗称“ sexting ”（发送色情短信），就是这样一个例子。随着自杀及其他与 sexting 相关的悲剧不断增加，全国各地的司法管辖区都在疯狂寻找遏制这种行为的方法。由于现行刑事法规过于严苛，立法者倾向于设立一项单独的 sexting 犯罪来处理不当行为。由于这些新法律在内容和规定处罚的严厉程度上差异很大，一些人认为它们缺乏原则。鉴于当代社会对起诉青少年之间双方自愿的性行为不感兴趣，批评者还认为这些法律是错误的且不合时宜的。这些指控没有将反 sexting 举措置于适当的历史背景中。这些法律是18、19和20世纪促使法定强奸罪立法的保护主义和家长式冲动在当今的体现。反 sexting 法律和法定强奸罪法律有着相同的基本目标：避免名誉受损及其不良后果。曾经性行为是必要的催化剂，而现在用于传播露骨色情材料的电子设备带来了风险。在当今的虚拟世界中，sexting 代表了一种间接的法定强奸，手机、笔记本电脑和 iPad 提供了可能毁掉生活的侵权行为。总之，将 sexting 定为非法的运动既不是错误的，也不是不合时宜的。它反映了一种广泛的信念，即需要保护青少年免受与 sexting 相关的伤害，同时也体现了一种家长式的愿望，即恢复一些在青少年网络世界中迅速消失的道德纯真。
