Vignette: Sexting
1. Does sexting represent a form of expression that is protected by the First Amendment?
Answer:
'Sexting' and other teen autopornography are becoming a widespread phenomenon, with perhaps 20% of teenagers admitting to producing nude or semi-nude pictures of themselves and an ever greater proportion, perhaps as many as 50%, having illegally received such pictures from friends and classmates. It is, moreover, beginning to result in criminal prosecutions, and the statutory penalties are severe. Given the reality of changing social practices, mores and technology utilization, today’s pornography laws are a trap for unwary teens and operate, in effect, to criminalize a large fraction of America’s young people. As such, these laws and prosecutions represent a stark example of the contradictions that can occur when governmental policies and initiatives built on past truths and values collide with new and unanticipated social phenomena.
2.What can be done to protect people from the dangers of sexting while still safeguarding our
First Amendment rights?
First Amendment rights?
Asnwer:
Legal regulation is often the routine, knee-jerk response to emerging societal concerns. However, imposing harsh, punitive restrictions on human behavior is not always the answer to these
social problems and often makes matters worse. And so it is with the phenomena of teenage “sexting.” Technology has once again outpaced the law, resulting in juveniles being publicly branded as sex offenders for relatively commonplace high school behavior. The use of stringent child pornography laws to punish children for activity that was never contemplated by lawmakers is ill-advised and has the potential to turn a generation of the growing population against ordered society.
Sexting, a combination of the words “sex” and “texting,” is the term coined to describe the activity of sending nude, semi-nude, or sexually explicit depictions in electronic messages, most
commonly through cellular phones.
This disturbing trend has generated some of the most notorious cases involving juveniles in recent years.While this behavior is perfectly legal and accepted among consenting adults, teenagers who
similarly experiment with this communicative outlet are often ragged into the judicial system by police officers, prosecutors, and judges. They reflexively categorize the activity as a child
pornography offense and proceed to utilize the strict laws designed to protect children as devastating weapons against them. Often, juveniles prosecuted for this behavior end up being included on the
public sex offender registry alongside the worst child molesters and pedophiles.
social problems and often makes matters worse. And so it is with the phenomena of teenage “sexting.” Technology has once again outpaced the law, resulting in juveniles being publicly branded as sex offenders for relatively commonplace high school behavior. The use of stringent child pornography laws to punish children for activity that was never contemplated by lawmakers is ill-advised and has the potential to turn a generation of the growing population against ordered society.
Sexting, a combination of the words “sex” and “texting,” is the term coined to describe the activity of sending nude, semi-nude, or sexually explicit depictions in electronic messages, most
commonly through cellular phones.
This disturbing trend has generated some of the most notorious cases involving juveniles in recent years.While this behavior is perfectly legal and accepted among consenting adults, teenagers who
similarly experiment with this communicative outlet are often ragged into the judicial system by police officers, prosecutors, and judges. They reflexively categorize the activity as a child
pornography offense and proceed to utilize the strict laws designed to protect children as devastating weapons against them. Often, juveniles prosecuted for this behavior end up being included on the
public sex offender registry alongside the worst child molesters and pedophiles.
Case Study 3: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
1. Visit the EFF Web site at www.eff.org and develop a list of its current “hot” issues. Research
one EFF issue that interests you, and write a brief paper summarizing EFF’s position.
Discuss whether you support this position and why.
Answer:Google has released a revamped version of its desktop search tool which introduces the ability to search the contents of one computer from another. Previous versions of the tool indexed files on user's PCs, but using the optional "Search Across Computers" facility in Google Desktop 3 temporarily stores text copies of searchable items on Google's ownservers for up to 30 days.
Search Across Computers makes a range of files - including web histories, Microsoft Word documents, Excel spreadsheets, power point presentations as well as PDF files and text files in the My Documents folder - searchable from other computers. The contents of secure web pages are excluded from the list. Users would log on using their Google password can find data on files they've worked on regardless of which PC they used to produce them. Users can also exclude certain file types or locations from indexing.
Even so, privacy activists such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have said the feature "greatly increases the risk to consumer privacy". It describes the facility as a gift to government snoops and a convenient "one-stop-shop for hackers" who've obtained a user's Google password. Users should avoid using Google Desktop 3, it advises.
Google argues that the growing use of multiple computers by users makes the feature useful. "Too many people are working across multiple computers now," Google vice president Marissa Mayer told USA Today. "This makes their lives easier."
In fairness, Google does acknowledge that the tool involves a trade off between functionality and security. That's a compromise Windows users have been stuck with for years, you might think. But even before the search engine behemoth was subpoenaed for search information by the Department of Justice, Google's latest desktop revamp would have raised eyebrows. The EFF, for one, is adamant users shouldn't trust Google with the contents of their personal computers.
"Unless you configure Google Desktop very carefully, and few people will, Google will have copies of your tax returns, love letters, business records, financial and medical files, and whatever other text-based documents the desktop software can index," EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston said. "The government could then demand these personal files with only a subpoena rather than the search warrant it would need to seize the same things from your home or business, and in many cases you wouldn't even be notified in time to challenge it.
2.What reasons might a firm give for joining and supporting EFF?
Answer:
It's been doing very good work, and you should examine the resumé of that work on the EFF web site. It's my firm belief that there is no greater catalyst for the success of a society than liberty. History tells that story again and again around the world. As new aspects of society -- and whole new societies -- are built online, the EFF's mission is to protect that liberty. The payoff, if it succeeds, is tremendous. A huge (but calculable) increase in economic prosperity and an incalculable dividend of personal freedom.
The EFF's primary cost is the staff, who because they work much harder than their salaries would warrant, are themselves all donors. This staff works to get the message out and organize the fight for digital liberty, and our on-staff attorneys make the difference in court and legislative battles on all fronts.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento