The New Pornographers: New Media, Sexual Expression, and the Law

{mmtwlx?s 201 I Introduction: Emerging Media: A View Kathleen German and Bntu Dntsh.el. The Continuum International Publishing Group Downstream i 80 Maiden Lane, New York, NY 10038 The Tower Building, 1 1 York Road, London SE I 7NX * www.con tinuumbooks.com Copyright @ 2011 by ffitiNe*s, (ww*wrmetrr, mmq$ {uB$e}re tl eBay Ethics: Simulating Civility in One of the New Digital Bruce E. Drushel and Kathleen (lerman I)emocracies All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publishers. 13 liobert MacDougall, Ph.D. 2l New Romance: A Digital Media Practice in the Age of the Internet Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The ethics of emerging media: information, social norms, and new me dia technology edited by Bruce E. Drushel and Kathleen German. p.cm. Mel Racho / 3l TKs105.878.E83 395.5-dc22 4l 2010029218 HB:97i1-1-4411-1f136-3 PB: 978-1-441 1-8335+1 xrrqd ffieguflw$mrs lllrizornatic Restoration: Conservation Ethics in the Age of Wikipcclia I )rr.rt.itl, Ilut th Cull 20lt 5l Bell, Ph.D. ll &thismfl Frmefie*s *$ {*rssentlu8srs tl ISBN: ldol Concerns: The Ethics of Parasociality ( )h.ri.stopher lncludes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-1-4411-1U3&3 (hardcover: alk. paper) ISBN-1 0: 1-441 1-1 836-5 (hardcover: alk. paper) ISBN- 1 3 : 97 8-), -441 1-8335-4 ( pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 1-4411-8335-3 (pbk.: alk. paper) 1. Internet-Moral and ethical aspects. 2. Online etiquette. 3. Social media. I. Drushel, Bruce. Il. German, Kathleen M. .ll) 77 I 'f 't,,' Ncw I'ornographers: Legal and Ethical Considerations ol Scxlirtg 99 lln'l I l.tt.tr u,fitxl, I'h.D. Typeset by Pindar NZ, Auckland, New Zealand Printed and bound in the United States of America 6 | "t',,, IIr.x. lo'lirll Vrrr ir's OK": Thc FCC Chairman, Digital 'l'V, :rnrl Lyirrg lo tlrr' (lrvcrrlrrt'rrl llt tt r r' I )t tt tlrr'1, l'lt. I ). 119 ,, I The New Pornogrophers: Legol ond Ethicol ti Considerotions of Sexting mffifiTT LUN[rFSX$, [}niversily of South phl.m.1 Alnhmmer (HoiA*s hA,lr rolic r'r0rrD rfr[ role of the media in the sexualization of children and adolescents. However, with the advent of new media technologies such as the internet and cellular phones, children and itrkrlescents are no longer merely consumers of this sexual ideology, Ittrt also creators of digital content that performs this ideology. Such ('()nlent can range from the relatively tame "girls making out" images lorrrrd on sites such as collegehumor.com to sexually explicit photoglirphs transmitted through cellular phones within a circle of friends llrirt draws the attention of law enforcement. In this essay, I discuss the pt'irt t.ice of adolescent sexting (the practice of sending sexually explicit lrxl rnessages) by reviewing some of the more prominent cases covered Itr tlr<: media; next, I explore the legal aspects surrounding the practice ol's<'xting; finally, I consider the ethical issues surrounding sexting, l'xlrkrring the issue of harm to both the individual and society by rooting lltt' llractice within a culture that celebrates, yet remains suspicious of, e \ t/ I nr k rlcs<:ent sexuality. l)r'sllite nulnerous studies that demonstrate that adolescents and chiltltrrr irrc sexual heirrgs (e.g. Calderone 1985; Martinson 1994; Buzwell iturl ll<rscrrthal l1)1)(i; I)lvit's r:t o,l.2000:Larsson eto,t.2000;Santelli stal. illl(X): Wlritrrk<'t lt ttl. L(XX); Woo<ly rt ol.2(XX); Lurtrh 200 1: l,itrlc artrl I00 The [lni*s cl {-m*rging M*di<: Rankin 2001;sandnabba et al.2003;Woody et al.2O03; Graupner 2004; Hornor 2004;Manni:ng et a|.2005;Cornell and Halpern-Felsher 2006; Kelsey 2007), American society remains ambivalent toward adolescent sexual expression. This is especially the case where photographic evidence of sexual behavior is concerned. But in a culture that celebrates aggressive f'emale sexuality, adolescent girls are given mixed messages. Paris Hilton is famous for appearing in a sex tape and for the ubiquitous upskirt photographs that feature her sans panties, yet a llyeat-old New .|ersey girl faced potential child pornography charges with the accompanying sex offender registration for posting explicit photographs of herself on MySpace (Brattlcboro Reformer2\j9;Defalco 2009; Iblson 2009; Proa irlen ce Journal 20 09). D e spite the see mingly cle ar-cut laws surrounding child pornography, the realities of adolescent sexuality trouhle our conception of what constitutes legal and ethical behavior, especially in the digital age, when images, text, and video can be transmitted at thtl touch of a button to many people at once. The assumptions surroundar(r that adults are exploiting children ing child pornography -to pllt seem determined who of youth new generation by a challenged themselves, and their sexuality, on display. Many adolescents seem unaware of the potential for humiliatiorr and embarrassment that can occur when these photos and videos ar(' distributecl to unintended parties. Thus potential harm to the individual is an underlying ethical concern. For example,Jessica Logan, att 1S-year-old woman from Ohio, killed herself after her ex-boyfriend serlt nude picturcs of her to other girls at her school. Logan was tormente(l by other students; she "was called all sorts of names, people were throwing stuff at her, and one day her mother found her in her bedroonr. She'd hanged herself' (Feldman 2009, 1). Sometimes the photos can ht' made even more public, as in the case of Vanessa Hudgens, of Disney's High Schoot Musicalseries,who caused a public relations embarrassmettl when nude pictures meant for her boyfriend were leaked to the intenr<'t (Bennington Banner2007;Hicks 2007; Keating and Zeidler 2A07; Nao Ynlt Posl 2008). This essay examines the practice of adolescent "sexting," or sendirrg sexual messages or images through text messages. I will first discuss tlrr' practice of sexting by reviewing some of the more prominent c:rst's; next, I will explore the legal aspects surrounding the practice of sextir rg; finally, I will consider the ethical issues surrounding sex(ing, t:xpkrrirrg thc issrrc of harnr to ltoth thc individual and sot it'lt'lrv tortlittg llrr' The New Pornogrcrphers l0l practice within a c,lture that celebrates, yet remains suspicious of, adolescent sexuality. Digi$*l $xfu$&$rim*ism; T&* {qrse *$ *,$exgfixtguu Eric Schaefer (2002) explains that the advenr of 16mm film technology revolutionized pornographic films. Digital video technology and the popularity of the internet seem to have wrought a similar ievolution. with the internet, channels of distribution have been eliminated, and anyone with a digital camera and exhibitionistic tenclencies can .xpose himself or herself to thousands of people. Martin Barron and Michael Kimmel (2000, 165) trace the deveropmenr of three forms of pornographic media magazines, vicleos, and Usenet describing - "the increasing 'clemocratization, - of pornohow these shifis ill,strate graphic media." However, these forms of pornography remain reratively llnonymous. Unlike those who post images online for their own sexual lirlfillment, teenagers are currently engaging in distrib.tion of por,ographic images of themselves in a more targeted manner, often through cellular phones. Such acts have been described in the meclia as "sexting." Sexting is a growing concern among parents, law enforcement and legislators. A study published by the National campaign 'fficials, to Prevent Teen Pregnancy and cosmoGirr.com (2008, 1) found that 22 percent ofteen girls, lB percent ofteen boys, and 1 I percent ofyoung It'c:n girls (ages 13-16) "have sent,/posted nude or seminude pictures ,r video of themselves."2 \Arhat's more, Bill Albert, a spokesman for the N^tional campaign to Prevent Teen pregnancy, states that .,legal conse(lllences were very low on their list of concerns" (Marks 2009). Although llris is a phenomenon that seems to be shared byboth males and females (sr:c also Hamill 2009a), many of the news reports seem to focus on cases irrv.lving adolescentfemales who se,t photos to their boyfriends, which liirrnes the behavior as mainly a heterosexual phenomenon. Flowever, w. have no way of knowing whether this is the case, because the Nationar ( llrrrrpaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned pregnancy and cosmoGirl. corrr st.udy did not identify sexual orientation. 'l'lrcre have been several recent high-profile cases of sexting that have lx'r'rr wick:ly rcp.r't<'d, the rnost spectacular of which is the casl of.fessica l ,,glrrr, wlr. killt'tl lr<.r's.ll .ri<'r. ,rrde photos .f her were clisscminatecl to Itt't t l;tssnr:rlcs (1,'r.lrlrrr rrr ?(X),1); Iift.tr.lr3r.:rtrrl.f11lly Z(X)l); M<.(irpty 200,1); I02 lh* [thi*s ol Irne rEino M*ciic The ! Morelli 2009; I'arrir! lrulg'r 2(x)1)). Arr.ther case involved a group of students in spring (lrrrvt', l'r'nrrsylvania, where rwo freshman girls sent nude photos ol thcrnsclves thatwere then for-warded around the school (Boeckel 2009; Evans 2009; Euening Sun2009; Gross 2009; parker 2009; Shaw 2009; York Dispatch 2009). one case that illustrates the fuzzy boundaries of what is considerecl acceptable adolescent self-expression involved a group of teerragers in Wyoming County, Pennsylvania (Gram 2009; Hamill 2009a, 2009b; Marks 2009; Nissley 2009; Rubinkam 2009; Searcey 2009). Seventeen students had been caught eitherwith nude or semi-nude photos of classmates on their cell phones, or theywere identified in the images. These students accepted an offer to take a course dealing with pornography and sexual violence in lieu being charged with child pornography. 'f rejected the offer However, three other students because they did not feel that they had done anything wrong. In the case of two girls who were both wearing bras, District Attorney George skumanick.|r. considered the photo "provocative" and threatened them with child abuse charges il' they did not take the class (Hamilt 2009a). He also threarened a girl who was photographed wearing a bathing suit (Searcey 200g). Thus in some cases the motive may not even be sexual expression, but is perceived as sexual by others. Skumanick put forth a rather overbroad definition of child pornography, one that would render illegal almost any calvin Klein ad aimed at the teenage market. The walt streetJournalreported that skumanick claimed that"a girl in a bathing suit could be suhjected to criminal charges because she was posed 'provocatively,,, (Searcey 200g, A77). Yet the girls were being sent mixed messages, essentially being told thar when similar images are taken in a different context, it is art or comm. l: cial speech. MaryJo Miller, the mother of one of the girls who appearcrl in their bras, observed, "There are photos of girls in magazines wearing bras" (Nissley 2009). Moreover, much more provocative photos, such rrs the semi-nude photos of Miley cyrus in vanityFair, have resulted in litrk. more than hand wringing about the sexualization of teens..|im Farb<.r states that "The quasi-ntde vanity Fair spread drew howls of ourragr. from parents, and shrieks from kids who thought it beneath their swt'<'r idol" (Farber 2008, 35). Yer this did nor resuk in child porn.graPlry charges asainst vani\ FaiT Annie Leibovitz, or any of the millio.s wlrr likely own a copy of the magazine. cyrus defended the photos, sr.ri.g, "I thought, 'This looks prety, and really natural.' I think ir's really rrr.rsr," r Nal pornographers 103 (winkrer 2008, c5). Even so, she later conceded that "it was honestly one dumb decision. I just think I need to be a bit more careful next time" (Sundq MimorZ00B,6). Similar arguments could likely be made by other, less famous teens with less illustrious photograpfr.^. Three of the girls accused by Skumanick have taken"the case to court, arguing that they a]e guilty of producing or appearing in child ]101 pornography. MaryJo Miller, the morher of one of-tire girli, arguea, "There was absolutely nothing wrong with that photograpil,, (quoted in Rubinkam 2009, B). critics argued that the oistiictattl.rr.y,, orfi.. *u, overstepping its role_ in prorecting children. witold warJzak, a lawyer with the American civil Liberties union of pennsylvania, which represents the families who are fighting the charges, stated, ,ip.or..,rto., should not be using.a nuclea._w.ap".rrr_ryp. charge like child pornog_ raphy against kids who have no criminal intent urd u.. -"r.iy doing stupid things" (Hamill 2009a, A2t). The various cases of sexting demonstrate the variety of punishments that prosecutors have attempted to impose. Recently, a 14-year_old girl liom NewJersey was accused of distributing child po.rog.uplry ura irrrested for posting explicit photos of herserf on trryspace" (Brattreboro Ittformer 20 09 ; Defarc o 2009 Kalson ; 20 0g ; proa i d, en c e Journ a r 2009 ) . ye t, the Proaidence Journal 81) reported that .,Ma'ureen Kanka, the -(2009, NewJersey mother who pushed fo. Jirlega.,,sl Law after her daugh_ l.cr was killed by a sex offender, brasted iuthorities for charging the l*year-old, saying the girl 'shourd have intervenrion and counseling, because the only person she exploited was herserf.,,,But i, the face of strict child pornography laws and raws that counter child exploitarion, srrch as Megan's Law, thatwas not a decision for her to make the raws irre clear: child pornography is child pornography - of who regardless ('rcates it. The sirl received probation an. couit-orde*recl counseling (llillups 2009), but such u.ur. reveals a need for nuance i, l.gui;;; r.t,ical considerations surrounding not only child po.rogrup-hy bra irrl,lescent sexuality in generar. ac.J.dhg to perryAfian orr)vireasarety. ()r'g' an online internet safety website, "The laws are either too hot or loo cold and we need to make sure we find one that isjust right . . . We rr.t' cither charging kids under ch,d pornography and sexJal exploilaws as if they were regisrered sex offenders which ]rrtil]r will lr. il thcy're strccessr.fly prosecuted or we're - them athey giving slap on llr. w.is( wirlr lr:rr':rssrrr<'rrr r.ws thatwere.ot intencred t. acrdrt_ss this,, ( Mrrr ks ?(X)1,. :i, ). 104 The Itfrlcr of Inrerging M*dic The New &do**scerlt $exucility **xd $ke lww In media depictions of sexting, its legal status is a primary concern: is it a crime or is it simply a foolish thing that youth today are doing? As far as the law is concerned, it is a crime, but the ways in which legal scholars and legislators frame the laws concerning adolescent sexuali[y can reveal underlying ethical stances. Because a core ethical consider- ation concerns the potential harm to both the individual and society, it is important to consider the existing legal debate surrounding the practice of sexting which, in some ways, mirrors the ongoing debate surrounding the rights of the individual versus the rights of society as a whole. First, however, we must consider sexting within the context ot the current sexual practices of adolescents. Much of the hand-wringing surrounding sexting concerns thc transmission of nude photos of teenagers. Nudity is not sexualiry, ol course, but the display of the unclothed body is a common form ol sexual self-expression in both adults and adolescents. For example, one teen referred to her sexting as "flirting" (Marks 2009,25) and another' stated, "It's just like another form of sex" (quoted in Cahalan 2009, 3). As noted earlier, research demonstrates that adolescents and even children are sexual beings. John Santelli et al. (2009, 378) note thar despite a decrease in sexual initiation in adolescents from 54 percent trr 48 percent, they also "found an increase in current sexual activity frorrr 1991- 2007 among sexually experienced students." In other wclrds, slightly fewer teens are beginning to have sex but those who are having sex are having more of it. Jodi Cornell and Bonnie Halpern-Felshe (2006, 299) found in their study of ninth-graders that 20.3 percenr had had oral sex, 12.6 percent had had vaginal sex, and 10 percerrt had had both oral and vaginal sex. Moreovet teens are not only having sex with their romantic partners, but other "hook ups" as well. For example, Manning et al. (2005,398) found that over a third of sexualll, active teens had sex with a partner with whom they were not romaltti cally involved (see also Manning et aL.2006). Such behaviors persist :rs adolescents move into adulthood and go to college (Paul 2006; Parrl and Hayes 2002) . Add to this ambiguity concerning relationships tlrt. ambiguity of definition: some teens do not consider oral or anal sex tr be "sex" (Carpenter 2001;Nicoletti 2005). Despite the reality of adolescent sexual experience, the Unitt.rl Stat.es has passed laws that attentpt to legislate it into srrbmission. Mlrr r ()r'aw L<'itry (2007,32) ck:scrib<:s llrc inhcrcrrt lcrrsiorr cxistirrg irr l:rws Pornographers 105 governing adolescent sexuality: 'Although juveniles lack the capacity to consent, they do not necessarily lack the ability to intentionally have sexual contact." In the case of self-produced pornography, the laws, where they relate to images of minors, are quite .teu.. it e Adam walsh child Protection and Safety Act (2006) includes "possession, production, or distribution of child pornography" (S 169i1(7)) as an offense fbr which one must register as a Tier II sex offender and which carries aZ\-year registrarion period ($169r5(a)). other artempts at curbing child pornography inclucle the protection of children Against sexual Exploitation Act of 1g77 , child pornography prevention Acr of 1996, and the PRoTECT Act of 2003 (for legal commentary concerning the issue of child pornography, see Adler z00l; Burke et ar.2002; l,rota 2o0z; ort 2002; Reid 2003; Bernstein 2005; Kornegay 2006; LaRoy 2008; Russeil 2008) ' Unlike the laws governing sexuar contact, the raws surrounding the production of child pornography do not seem to have any provisions Ior self-produced material or concern for the age of the producer. As demonstrated in news reports, law enforcement officials are still trying to determine how to deal with a case in which the victim and the I)erpetrator are the same person. There appear to be two prevailing schools of thought those who advocate a hard-line approach because - to society <lf the potential harm as a whole, and those who argue that r'hild pornography laws were never meant to punish teenageis, advo_ t:ating leniency when teens send pictures of themselv., to oth.. ,."rr. l,eary (2007 , 4-6) , a proponent of the first position, observes that: r r Minors, without the grooming or coercion of aclult offenders, are voluntarily creating and distributing self-produced child pornoeraprry. This "self-exploitation" occurs in countless circumstances incl,dirrg commercial production, producing with the intent that there will be a limited audience, self-posting of sexually explicit images on a web page or social networking site, producing for fee, making images of oneself and distrihuting or posting them on the Internet for recognition, attention, or pr.fit, recordins sexual encounters by a minorwith .nother, and others. whatever the circumstances, because this activity is the production of child pornography, these children face significant criminal penalties. Slrt'<'orr<-lrrrlcs tlrat "Bcr:ause we as a socie$u have acknowledged chilcl PrIrrrg'lrPlrr''s lrrrrrr r.xl.rrrls bcy.nrl tlr<lse <.lrilrlr..rr rlt,Pir.t.rl, wt: I ff" 106 Ilr,' I llrr, r ,,1 I rrrcrr;rrril il l i Mr.rlrrr cannot ignore this harm when the producer is a juvenire. Thus, o,r child pornography jurispru6ence supports juvenil,e prosecution as arr oprion ro stem irs proliferation" (I-"u.y 200i, Z6). Yet Stephen Smith (2009, 544) counters, To funnel into the criminal or juven,e justice systems cases of selfproduced child pornography _ material that, at its root, steps from the undeniabre fact that today's teenagers are sexually active well before they turn eighteen _ is unjustified. To do so would expose minors ro the severe stigma and penalties afforded by child pornog_ raphy laws. It would also cause minors to be branded as r.gister.cl sex offenders and to incur the onerous legar disabilities and restrictions that were passed with sexual predators in mind, not minors engaged in consensual sex with their peers. Smith (2008, lx bz9) concrudes that "these laws are simply too blunr an instrument to deal with consensuar teenage sex that the minors involvecr chose to film in a culture where, ror gooa or ill, sex among teenagers is commonplace.,' lmith and Leary,rustrate two opposing ethical stances the goorl of^ the individual versus the good of society as a whore and it seems that the legal system still is trying to strike an appropriate balanct. between the two' Moreover, it seems that legislato..'ura legal ,chola.. are attempting to impose a form of adolescent morality th.t r.v.. wur. However' unlike sexuar contact between individual teens, this form clr sexual expression can be sharecl by hundreds ofpeople as it spreads virally' rf such images were to proriferate, it wourd become increasingry difficult to distinguish voruniary adolescent sexual expression fronr child pornography created through coercive means. Because the issucs surrounding sexting are complex, it seems far from being resolved. The legal system has arways grappled with the rights of ihe individ,:rl and the impact of individual actions on others. yet both of these stanc.s ignore the implications of the fact, if not the fact itserf, that these adolcscents are choosingto create erotic images of themserves. These teerrage's were not pried with drugs and alcohol, nor were they coerced into crearing these images' As such, these images transgress the commonly herrrr narratives surrounding the production of chirl pornographf-r, *..r;,, and legal discourse concerning sexting, these images are continrririlr, described as self-exploitation, yer there ,iurt b. ro_Jt ,,,., ,;, ;,;,;,;;i;;,',; The Neru pornographers l0l in prod::i:g rhese images because, as Baruch Spinoza ::ll,:,..:esr ( 1992, 65) suggesrs, ,,NoUoay, unless h? [or she] i, or"..o_" Uy exrernal causes contrary 1 to his for her] own nature, neglects to seek his [or her] own advantage.,, In otherwords, these in ration u, 1,,, in the Tild, or the examine sexting from a cliff'erent standpoint, one that acknowledges the r:omplicity and agency of the adoler..rrr, - J:f,:#ilJ;'*:':#lf":;:"flfJ themselves. Sexum{ W*retxs sc$d r$.$e ffif$xfss m$ $*x$}x*g 'f<lhn stuart Mill (1907, 2-3) arg.es that "a, action is for the sake of some end, and rules of action, ii seems natural to suppose, must take .heir whole character ancr colour fiom the cnd to which they are subser_ vient." He conrinues, ,,when we engage,; ;;;;;;ffffi precise <:onceprion of what we are pursuing wt,rd seem to be the n..i tt ing we rreed, insread of the last we are to toot for_ward to,, (Mill lg0., Z) .What, rhen' seem to be the encrs implicit in the act of sexting? I suggest that at il.s heart, the utility value of s.*ting is in the construction oia ciesired presentation of sel[. Erving Goffinan (lgbg) suggesrs that we-are consrantly performing, ,resenting ourserves in ways that are socia,y desirable. This is arso the r:ase in sexuality; one is one,s sexualiry. yet, asJ,dith llutler ( 1990, 140) notes,"ry?yrperforming "!v. .egula.ly prinish those who fail to clo their gender right." Women.are caught in a paradox, required to perform lxrth the innocenr virgin urd ti. ,.".,JIly knowing wanton. Men are irnplored to value virility-and sexual .*f..i.rr.., such that the term "virgin" is used as a slur. Thus, it is not eniugh to simply consider these se1ual1tl as a perform rarher, ir seems thar rhese ::]:t]iT""t rrrages function rhetorica,y-. parke Burgess (rg70,120) states that "tlre strategies and motives of any rhetoric . . . represent an invitation t, :r life-style, an invitation to acropt a pattern of strategies and motives, vr:rbal and nonverbal, that a.t".-ir" n* rr., and women w,r func_ tio, together in culture." This i. .rp..iuttf rhe case with sexuar media: l{i.hard Miller (19g9, 149) arguesitru, ;lo.rrographic media use sug_ gt'stive images that appeal to Jfections ord ,.rrrrrul pleas.res; they are irls, speech acts in that they bid their pui.o* to assent to judgments rk.rrlrnded by the medium.,, l'lrlwi. Illa.k ( *)70' I r 9) cxplains, "In alr rhet.rical criscorrrse, wc can lirrrl .rrli.r'r,(.rl:i lr()l sirrr,lv t. lr<,li.vr. r,r,rr..tl,i,,g, lrrrl l. /z,s,rrx.llrirrg. 108 Thr [thir:r *l Irnrrging Medler We are solicited by the discourse to fulfill its blandishments with our very selves." Thomas Benson (1989, 318) provides a similar argument: "Rhetorical being, knowing, and doing are simultaneous and overlap- ping actions that together constitute rhetorical action: discourse is fabricated, judgments are made, understandings are shared, agents move others and are themselves moved to belief and action, and identities are revealed and created." By exposing themselves sexually and disseminating the images, these adolescents not only perform a sexual identity that they seem to believe is socially desirable, they also reveal a positive orientation toward such acts. That these images are then spread through the adolescent community likewise reveals ambivalence toward the legal implications of such images. In some ways, these adolescents create a self-fulfilling prophec/i they engage in behaviors that they know will attract attention and thus reinfbrce the behavior as desirable. They have found that the more explicit the act, the more desirable they will seem and the more attention they will receive. Thus it seems little wonder that photographs seem to be following a trajectory from less explicit and flirtatious images, to more revealing images, up to openly sexual images. Mill (1907, 9-10) proposes that "Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are: right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, \!'rong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation ol pleasure." There is likely some degree of pleasure derived from knowing one's own desirability. Susan Bordo (1999, 190) describes the "receptivt' pleasures traditionally reserved for women," such as "the pleasures, n()l of staring someone down but of feeling one's body caressed by another's eyes . . . Some people describe these receptive pleasures as 'passive' . . . 'Passive' hardly describes what's going on when one person offers hinrths56 211' self or herself to another. Inviting, receiving, responding ones." rather thrilling too, and behaviors active From a utilitarian standpoint, there is little wrong with putting onest'll on display if one seeks attention, especially in a culture that celebrat('s sexuality and youth. Mill (1907, 11) notes that "some Ainds of pleasrrrr' irrc 1)ore desirable and valuable than others," and in a culture satural('( I wilh rnessages imploring adolescents, especially young women, to be ttoI orrly scxy, bttt sexual, the pleasures derived from sexual expressi<ln :tt t ccrl:rirrly virlrrabkr artd clcsirable. Candice Kelsey (2007,5) argucs llr;rt "gills cnrvt. li'r.lirrg likc lrrr a<ltrlt. And lnarry girls lx'li<'vc llrlrl tt<ltrlt t'rlttltls The Nru Pornographers 109 sexy a conclusion that's repeated endlessly to them by marketers and media outlets hlping sexualized images and products."Adolescents who engage in sexting seem to have internalized the sexualization of the world in which they live. There remains the underlying question of whether the act of adolescents taking sexually explicit images of themselves and sending those images to others is ethical. I propose that the core issue here is harm, both to the teen emotionally and that which is done to his or her future and to society as a whole. It is crear that sexting may cause potential harm to the participant's emotional well-being, as evidenced in the case ofJessica Logan. Adorescents may be ill-equipped to deal with the potential betrayal of trust that comes when sexuar images of themselves are passed on to others without their consent. At the very least, such images may prove to be embarrassing if they resurface in the Iuture, as in the case ofvanessa Hudgens. If those who favor a hard-line approach to defining sexting as the production of child pornography have their way, there may also be potential harm ro rh; individual,s luture if he or she is required to register as a sex offender. yet all of this (with the exception of the potential for sex offender status) also applies il'the individual in the image is rB years olcl or older. once the individual turns 18, an act that was once creation and distribution of child llornography becomes merely a bad decision, and the law is not meant to I)rotect people from bad decisions. Moreover, this implies that somehow, ,n an arbitrary date (i.e., one's 18th birthday), an act transforms from a tnorally reprehensible act to one that is simply in poor taste. From a societal standpoint, Leary (2007) takes the stance that any it,ages of adolescent sexuality must be eliminated because they may be trscd by pedophiles to groom other vicrims. yet pedophiles cornmonly ttsc mainstream pornography to groom victims as weil (Dombrowski rt aL.2007;rtzin 1997), and there are legal alternatives that could just as t'irsily stand in for a grainy cell phone photograph of a l7-year-old. The itrrplicit argument concerning sexting seems to be that such images ruel/ lx' rrsed to groom pedophiles; from the standpoint of this arguirent it s('('lns incomprehensible that such images can be defined as yet another vlr.it'ty of pornography or simply self-expression. This line of reasoning r{('('rrs t. f,nction as an extension of what w. phillips Davison (lggg) clrlls tlrc "thircl person effect," in which individuals perceive that others will lrc rrrolt' :rlli'<'rcrl lry rrrr.rli:rtr.d messages than themselves (see also I'r'r'L rll ?(X)2). / ll0 The [lhir:s cf Inrerging Medicr The Of course, each instance of sexting tends to normalize the practice. Yet one cannot lay this entirely at the feet of the adolescents involved. Once again, we must consider the phenomenon within the larger media landscape in which these teens reside. Bandura (2002, 132) notes that "media portrayals can alter perceived social sanctions by the way in which the consequences of different styles of conduct arc portrayed." In many media portrayals of adolescent sexual behavior, the act is shown as a desirable outcome, a consummation of the relationship. Sexual intercourse is the logical telos of romantic relationships, even when teens are involved. Harris and Scott (2002,313) suggest that "watching numerous sitcoms and movies showing teenagers being sexually active may cultivate acceptance of such a position in the viewer' and thus weaken family-taught values against premarital sex." Sextinu can be considered simply another form of sexual expression, which tht' media portray as desirable. As such, sexting is merely a slmptom, rathcr' than the disease itself. Regardless of the reasons why, it is clear that adolescents seel)) determined to express their sexuality and, when viewed as a rhetoricirl act, sexting functions as a way to re-imagine adolescent sexuality. It als< I provides an opportunity to redefine the idea of child pornography, because it is clear that the teens who produce these images are n()l thinking of it as child pornography rather, they use terms such as "flir ing" (Marks 2009; National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplannt'< I Pregnancy and CosmoGirl.com 2008), "a joke" (Gadsden Times200tt. Gram 2009; National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplannctl Pregnancy and CosmoGirl.com 2008), or a "thrill" (Omaha World-Hnttl'l 2009). Semantics matter. Feminist scholars have described how lirrr guage affects women's self-image, especially where it concerns tlrt'ir sexuality (Ho and Tsang 2005; Pitts 1998). Victoria Pitts (1998,71t writes, "Reclaiming or resistance ideology implies that social inscripti,,rn especially the fenr:rlr' on the body can be rewritten, and the body impulse may llt' rrt A similar reclaimed." can be genitals and breasts work in adolescents'refusal to see sexting as criminal or even as lll()r ally wrong. Such linguistic strategies diminish the potential legal rrrr,l emotional consequences of the act. Taken from a utilitarian ethical stance, sexting can be secll lls:rrr appropriate, if notlegal, forrn of sexual self-expression. Mill (19{)7, {;l t suggests that "nothing is a good to human bt:irrtr;s lrtrt irr so litr':rs it n either itself pleasurzrblc, or a lncalls ol itllrrirrirrg plt':tstttt' ot ttvct litrli t Nar Pomographers I ll pain." The potential pleasure found in sending sexual images of oneself, howevel must be tempered with the potential pain of betrayal. But sexual expression is a natural part of life; likewise, the potential harm in such acts of self-expression is also a part of life. If ethics were to eliminate the potential for harm, one must denounce sex itself as unethical. Alan Soble (1992, 1146) argues that "the sexual permeates our Being. But this does not make sexual ethics sui generis, even if this ethics is important. Nor need it be restrictive; if our being is sexual, that could be just as much reason for a relaxed, as for a restrictive, sexual ethics." Adolescents are forcefully asserting their sexual agency. The clearest ethical stance concerning sexting lies not in forcing them to behave in a manner that adults consider appropriate, but rather in teaching them how to minimize the harm to themselves, as well as others, as they per- form their sexuality. This, more than anything, seems likely to yield the dividend of a generation that can behave sexually in an ethical way. Conelusi*n 'rhe issues surrounding pornographic images of adolescents created by the adolescents themselves have no easy or obvious solutions. Although lhe government has a compelling interest in protecting chilclren and irdolescents from sexual predators, the law as it currently stands exposes the fissures between what is considered normal adolescent sexualiry and the lived experience of adolescents. when public health researchers t:stimate that almost half of the adolescent population has engaged in scxual intercourse (Santelli et at. 2009), it seems clear that adolescents will seek not only to engage in sexual practices, but will also perform tlteir sexualiry and express themselves in sexual ways, much as adults hiwe chosen to do. G,uy Debord (1994, 151) declared that "the specracle is the acme ,l'ideology." By placing themselves on display in a sexual marrner, lhcse adolescents perform an ideology that considers sexual images an irJrpropriate mode of self-expression. Moreover, it constitutes a rejeclirln of the belief that adolescents are innocent creatures who are mere children under the law and who must be protected from exploitation. M.rc disturbing, however, is the internalization of the sexuality that Pcrvitdes American culture. They have learned far too well that they rrrrrst bc scxrurlly orlicing, and that one's worth is measured by his or her ;rlrysi<'rrl rrltlrrcriv.rr.ss :rrrrl rlt'siral>ility. M;urrit.c charland ( lgB7, 143) ll2 lhe [thics *l Irn*rging Medi* notes that "ideology is material because subjects enact their ideology and reconstitute their material world in its image." It seems clear that adolescents have embraced the pornographic mindset and are perfbrming it in a logical manner. When adolescents are continually bombarded with imperatives to be both sexy and sexual, it should come as little surprise that they would use new technologies to perform an identity that reflects these attributes. If the desire is to gain acceptance from others, especially peers, then sexting provides a means of generating considerable pleasure. New media provide a way to recalibrate ethical considerations sur- rounding sexuality, especially adolescent sexual activity. I have argued that legal and ethical concerns surrounding adolescent sexual expression must be considered within the larger culture that encourages such behavior. Moreover, one must also consider the constraints ol the media themselves because, as Marshall Mcluhan (1994) reminfls us, the medium influences how the message is perceived. In the cast' of sexting, teens choose to send images to their friends or romanti( partners; these images are not simply stumbled upon by surfing onlin<'' More importantly, the individuals depicted in these images are known l() the recipients. This is likely one reason why these images have a great('l potential to spread virally, even when the image was originally mearrt only for one person. Teens who engage in sexting are pushing the boundaries of adol<'s cent sexuality in ways that have less to do with the adolescents themselv('s and more to do with the t.echnologies available to them for expressiort oI these desires.Jacques Ellul (1964, 133) argues that "technique elicits arrrl conditions social, political, and economic change. It is the prime mov('l of all the rest, in spite of any appearance to the contrary." Technologt changes not only the available modes of expression, but humanitv rrs well. Adolescents are sexual beings, and sexting provides a modt'r,l sexual expression that is familiar to these "digital natives." One thing is certain, however: it is unlikely that socieq'will simply be able to legislatr' "N0 sexting out of existence. As Hannah Arendt (1976, 273) observed, to pr()v('rrl of deterrence punishment has ever possessed enough power the commission of crimes. On the contrary, whatever the punishrrlcrrt once a specific crime has appeared for the first time, its reappt:at'ltrrr,' is more likely than its initial emergence corrld ever have bcen.'' The case of sextinS provides an opporttrtrity to r<'<'<ltrsi<lcr llrt't'tlrit,rl limits of adolescent sexuzrlity ancl sexrrirlity irr g<'rrcrlrl. ( ltlt tt'rtt :lll('rrrl)l\ l'he New Pcrrnographers ll3 to combat adolescent sexuality seem to ignore what anecdotal experience and scholarly research have demonstrated all along adolesients are sexual beings. Generations of adolescenls have demonstrated the difficulty of reining in their sexuality; yet, until recently, it has been possible to simply ignore the issue and believe that such acts were happening clsewhere. But biology is a harsh mistress, and attempts tolquelch adolescent sexuality have simply yielded more creative means of sexual r:xpression. The prevalence of sexting has brought the issue of adolescent scxual expression into the public sphere in a dramatic way. viewed from a, ethical standpoint, I have argued that the phenomenon of sexting rr)ust be placed within its societal context. This is not an argument for rnoral relativism, but rather a case where utilitarianism provides some t:xplanatory force for behavior that may, on the surface, seem damaging l. both the individ,al and society. \A/hen adorescents are taught, largely tlrrough the mass media, that sexual experience is a desired good, and l lrcse values are then perpetuated among their peers, it seems clear that lt,rtraying oneself as sexual would be a desirable strategy. Tiyr.g to save itrlolescents from themselves without understanding the roots of the lrchavior is misguided at best. l{otes I Brett Lunceford (Ph.D., pennsylvania stare university) is Assistant prof'esso. of communication at the University of So,th Alabama. His research interests center on rhetoricaltheory-and social implications of new technologies. His r.esearch has been published in Amsrica,n cimmunicationJournal, commitnication 'lbacher ETC: A Rruiar_of General semantics, Exprora,tionsin Media Ecolog, Media Mo-nographs, N.orthwu-tTy loltrnar of r:echnorrg antl Inteilectuai-'property, of Communication, and T'heotagl ani Sexualiql l:u-y llniru !. s<>me have raised concerns about tiie methodology used to gather the clata l.r this survey, s,ggesting that the figures may be iirflated belause rhe teens that are online are those who wourd be iik.ry to engage in sexting (see Ilialik 2009). -o.. Rolerenres Arlir, walsh child Protecrion and safery Act of 2006. 42 u.s.c. sl690I. Atfty.ir fml.^{00^L]h" perverse law of child pornography. Cotumiio t_au l0l (2): Rruieu, 209-273. A'r'rrrlr, I lirrrrrah. 1g76. Eichmann inJmtsaltm: A Rcltort o, the Banalitl oJ'Eail. ltcvis<.rl imd enlarged edition. New york: penguin Books. .. ll,rrrrlrr'rr, AIbcrt. 2002. social cosnitive theory <iimass communication. I, hlnli. lilfil': Adttttnr:e' in,'l'lunry arul fusearch, ed..|. Bryant and D. Zillmann, 1r1r. Il? I*51t. Mllnvrrlr, Nf : L:rwn.rrt.c lirlbarrm Associates. ll,ttt,rn, M:rltirr:rrrrl Mir.lr:rr.l l(irrrrucl..j(XX). S<,xrr:rl violence in three l.xrt rrrrgr;rlrlril rrrcrlilr: ror.v:rrrl:r sor iologir.irl <.xpl:rn:tliorr. 'l'ltr.ftnrrrtallf ,\ex llt'vrttrlt ll7: l(il l(iH ll4 TL* ilihics *i l'he New Pornographtrs l-nr*rging Medi* DeFalco, Beth. 2009. Teen charged with child porn after she posts nude shots of herself on MySpace. Virginian-Pilot (Norfblk, VA), March 27. Dombrowski, Stefan C., Karen L. Gischlar, and Theo Durst. 2007. Saf'eguarding y-oung people from cyber pornography and cyber sexual predation: a major dilemma of the internet. Child Abuse RnieutT6(3):153-170. Ellul, Jacques . 1964. The Tbchnological Society. 'trans. John Wilkinson. New york: Vintage Books. Evans, Elizabeth. 2009. "Sexting" lands Spring Grove students in trouble. yor& Dispatch (York, PA), March 27. Iiuening Sun (Hanoveq PA). 2009. Racy photos cause fury April 16. Farber,Jim. 2008. The best of both worlds. Okay, you blew it with the Vanity Fairpix, Miley! But there are ways to be a reen and still come of age. Nan york Bennington Banner (Bennington, VT). 2007. Nude photos of Disney star surface, September B. Benson, Thomas w. 1989. Rhetoric as a way of being. ln Amnican Rhetoric: Context and, Criticism, ed. T. W. Benson, pp.293-322. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Bernstein, Richard. ?005. Must the children be sacrificed: the tension betweer] emerging imaging technology, free speech and protecting children. P,ntgers Compiter and'fechnolog l-aw Journal 31 : 406429. sextin( The Numbers Guy: which is epidemic Bialik, carl. 2009. currents or worrying about it? cyberpolls, relying on skewed samples of techno-teens, aren,t alwalys worth the papir they're not printed on. Wall Street.loumal, April B: A9. Dai$ Ncuts, Jdy 24. Feldman, Claudia. 2009. Message is out on sexting: teens learning consequences of texting nudity sexting: teenagers aren't aware of the Billups, Andrea. 2009. School districts hope students get the picture about "sexting" dangers. Washington Times,luly 23. Black, Edwin. t 5ZO. ttre secbnd Persona. Quarterly Journal oJ Speech 56: 109-1 19. Boeckel, Teresa Ann. 2009. Meeting to aim at sexting issue: a Spring Grove event open to parents from all local districts . York Daill turor{ (!91t<, PA) , April 15' Boido, Susan. 1ggg. The Male Bodl: A New Look at Men in Public and. in Piunte. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Brattlehoro Rtformer (Brattleboro, VT). 2009. NJ. teen arrested after posting Quarterly Journal of Speech 7 3: )'33-150 . 2006. Adolescents tell us wh1 38: 299-30i ' Health Adokscent of sex. oral have teens Journal Davies, Sally Lloyd, Dinya Glaier, and Ruth Kossoff. 2000. Children's sexttal play and Lehavior in pre-school settings: staff's perceptions, reports, anrl Coinell,loil L. ancl Bbnnie L. Halpern-Felsher. i".pott..s. Chi,t d, Abuse U Negk ct 24: 1329-134-3' Davircn, w. Phillips. 1983. The third-person effect in communicati<tn. l\ilil.it Opinion Quarterly 47 : 7-1.5. Deborcl, cu-y. roo4. 'lhe socie1 of the spectack. Trans. I)onirl<l Niclrolson-Srrritlr New Vrrk: Zotrc Books. e potential consequences. Houston Chroniclz, April i' nude pics. March 27. Burgess, Parke G. 1970. The rhetoric of moral conflict: two critical dimenstons. Quarterly Journal of Sp ee ch 56: 1 20-l 30. Buii<e, Anie, Shawn Sowerbutts, Barry Blundell, and Michael Sherry' 2002' child pornography and the inrernet: policing and treatment issues. Pslthinlr.r. Psych,ology and I'aw 9 (L) : 79-84. Budlr, JuJith . lgg0. Gender Troubb: Femi.nism and the Subuer.sion of ldentity. New York: Routledge. Buzwell, Simone and Doreen Rosenthal. 1996. Constructing a sexual self: adolescents' sexual self-perceptions and sexual risk-taking..rlournal of Rtsertn lt on ArJolescence 6: 489-513. cahalan, Susannah. 2009. sex "cells" for naked teenagers: naughry cam craz('. Neu Yorh Post,.fanuary 25' Calderone, Uary S. 1985. Adolescent sexuality: elements and genesis. Pedirttrir: 76: 699-703. Carpenter, Laura M. 2001. The ambiguity of "having sex": the- subjective experience of virginity loss in the United states. TheJountal of sex Rtsearch 38(2):127-139. Chariand, Maurice. 1987. Constitutive rhetoric: the case of the Peuple Quibfuttis I I5 2. Fletcher,Jaimee Lynn and VikJolly. 2009. "sexting" incidents spark debate. Orange Countl Register (Santa Ana, C{), March 23. C,adsrl,en 77mes (Gadsden, AL). 2009. Technology can be harmful, March 29. (i'offman, Erving. 1959 . T'he Presentation of Self in Eaerlday Life. Garden Ciry, Ny Doubleday. (iram, Dave. 2009. Porn charge may be lified in "sexting" cases. Bennington Bannn (Bennington, W), April 15. ()raupner, Helmut. 2004. The 17-year-old child: an absurdity of the late 20th :!:l ii4 :;t, ,$: -"+t '};:' w. *a :e. s. .t; centlrry. Journal of Pslcholag U Huma,n Sexuality 16 (Z/Z):7*24. ()ross, Greg. 2009. Sexting to get clarity in rules Spring Grove board will define what inappropriate material is in its code of conduct. School board to vote in response to sexting. Last month, two explicit images were sent to students. York Daily tucord (York, PA) , April 7. llamill, Sean D. 2009a. Students sue prosecutor in cellphone photos case. New York Timts, March 26. 2009b. Pennsylvania:judge blocks charges in cell phone case. New yryrk 'l:imes,March 3),. -. llarris, RichardJackson and Christina L. Scott. 2002. Efl'ects of sex in rhe Media fficts: Adaances in T'heory and Rtsearch, ed.J. Bryanr and D. Zillmann, pp. 307-31. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. I I icks, Marybe ttr. 2007 . \Arhere is the outrage over risque photograph? 1edia. ln Washington Times, October 7. lk>, Petula Sik \4ng and Adolf Ka Tht Tsang. 2005. Beyond the vagina-clitoris <lcbate: from naming the genitals to reclaiming; rhe woman's body. Women's S tudies International l-orum 28: 523-534. I lrrrrror, Gail. 2004. Sexual behavior in children: norrnal or not? Journal of l'nliatric Health Care lB(2): 57-64. Itzirr, catherine. 1997. Pornography and the organization of intrafamilial and cxtrafamilial child sexual abuse: developing a conceptual model. child Abu,se llnieu 6(2):94-106. K:rlsrrr, Sally. 2009. Sexting . . . and other stupid teen tricks; what's stupider, tlr<rrrglr, are acltrlts who criminalize youthful indiscretions. pixsburgh post( )n.zcl,l,e, Mar< lr 21). l(r'irtirrg, ()irrlr :rrrrl Srr. z.irll<'r'. 2(x)7. Disncy backs actress after rrude photo ll6 Tha [thirr of Im*rging M*dia The Nau on internet sparks bad publicity; Vanessa Hudgens, star of the made-for-kids TV movie High School Musical, apologizes. Vancouuer Suz (Vancouver, BC), September B. Kelsey, Candice. 2007. \,Vho is she online? Daughters 12(4): 5. Kornegay,James Nicholas. 2006. Protecting our children and the Constitution: an analysis of the "virtual" child pornography provisions of the Protect Act of 2003. William and Mary l.aw Rniaa 47:2129-2767. Sex Play' Lamb, Sharon .2001. The Secret Liues of Grk: \\hat Good Grls Rzally Do Aggression, and their Gzilr. New York: Free Press. LaRoy, Anna K 2008. Discovering child pornography: the death ofthe presumption of innocence. Aae Maria Lau Rniaa 6(2): 559-586. Larsson, Ingbeth, Carl-Goran Svedin, and William Friedrich. 2000. Differences and similarities in sexual behaviour among pre-schoolers in Sweden and USA. NordicJournal of Psychiatry 54 251-257 . Leary, Mary Graw 2007. Self-produced child pornography: the appropriate societal response to juvenile self-sexual exploitation. VirginiaJoumal of Sodal Policy and Laut l5(1): 1-50. Little, Craig B. and Andrea Rankin. 2001. Why do they start it? Explaining reported early-teen sexual activity. So cio lo gi cal Foru'm | 6'. 7 03-7 29. Manning, Wendy D., Peggy C. Giordano, and Monica A. Longmore. 2006. Hooking up: the relationship contexts of "nonrelationship" sex..ilournal of Arl,olescent Research 2\: 459-483. Manning, Wendy D., Monica A. Longmore, and Peggy C. Giordano' 2005. Adolescents' involvement in non-romantic sexual activity. Sotial Science Research 34(2): 384-407 . Marks, Alexandra. 2009. Charges against "sexting" teenagers highlight legal gaps. Christian Science Monelor March 31. Martinson, Floyd Mansfield. 1994. The Sexual Life of Children. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. McCarf, Mary. 2009. "Sexting" can ensnare kids in a net of tragedy. Dayton Doilr Nezrrs, March 19. Mcluhan, Marshall. 1994. Understanding Medi.a: The Extensions of Man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. TSth ed. London: Longmans, Green, and Co. Miller, Richard B. 1989. Violent pornography: mimetic nihilism and the et:lilrsr' of difference s. ln For Adult []sers On\: The Dilemma of Violent Pornographl, ctl S. Gubar andJ. Hoff, pp. 147-62. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Morelli, Keith. 2009. "Sexting" of racy photos can have dite restlts. Tampa Tiibune, March 16. Mota, Sue Ann. 2002. The U.S. Supreme Court addresses the Child Pornography Prevention Act and Child Online Protection Lctin Ashcrofi. Mill,John Stuart. 7907. tltilitarianism. a. Free Speech Coalition and Ashcroft u. American Ciail Liberties Union. Iied,eral Communications Law Journal 55 ( I ) : 85-98. National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, and CosmoGirl.com. 2008. Sex and tech: results from a survey of teens anrl yotttrl' adults. Washington, D.C. Neut York Post.2008. Real bad nudes,.]anuary 3. Nicoletti, Angela. 2005. The delinition of abstinence. .lourntl Adolcscent Gyn,etnlog I8(1): 57-58. ol' I'rulia,tt'it tt tttl Potnographers I l7 Erin [,. 2009. Girls in "sexting,,scandal defy D. A. Times:fribune (Scranton, PA), March 27. omaha wmkl-Herald. 2o.g?. "Sexting" resrs ord limits in new age, February 25. ( )st, Suzanne. 2002. children at risk: regal and socieral p..."!tior-,. oi ,h" potential threar thar lh"J91.^.*i9l of child pornog.aphy po.", to society. .loumal of Socioknguistics 6: 436-460. I'arker' Brock. 2009. spring Grove parents comprain about phones taken in sexting case . York Dispatch (york, pA), April 16. .. l'utnot.I-edgr (Quincy, MA). 2009. Teen s&ting can have deadly consequences> Nissley, April 3. I'aul, Elizabeth L. 2006. Beer goggles, catching feelings, and the walk of shame: the myths and realities of the_ [ookup ."p"rI.r.". ln Rerating Dfficurty: The Procases of constructing and Managytg Di$rcurt Interu,ction, ed,. b. S. Duck and M. Foley, pp. 14l-60. Mihwah, NJ: Lawrence I( i. xir(patrict , Erlbaum Associates Publ ishers. l')aul, Elizabeth L. and Kristen A. Hayes. 2002. The casualties of .,casual,, sex: a qualitativ-e-exploration of the phenomenology of college students' hookups. I2uyal of Social and Pnsonal Relationships 19:"6;89_661. .tt:rloff, Richard f " M. 2002. The third person effect in merlia effects .ln Mertia lfficts: Aduances in Theory and Research, ed.J. Bryant and D. Zillmanr., pp. 489-506. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associares. Pitts, victoria L. 1998. "Reclaiming" rhe female body: embodied idenrity/ work, relistanc_e and the grotesque. Aoay U Sociery .. ltnruidenu Journal (Providen-e, RI) . 2oos. "Sexting" poses perplexing legal 4$):'67_g4. thicket, April 9. Itr:id, Ronald Patrick. 2008. Ashcroft v. American civil Liberties rJnion. Jones Law Reaiau 7(l) : 95-1 12. Itrrbinkam, Michael. 2009. Girls face porn charge for cel "fun" D. A. rhrearens I'elo,nycase over "sexting', photos. kouston Cironicle,March 26. -Rrrssell, Gabrielle. 2008. _perlophiles in wonderland: censoring the sinful in t:Ifer.sgac9. Jourual of Criminal Law and, Criminol.og;y 98: l46i_l4gg. .. Srurdnabba, N. Kenneth, Pekka santtila, Malin wainis, and Ka{a Krook. 2003. fge-11a -ggnder specific sexual behaviors in childre n. child A"buse u Negrex 27 579-605. srrrrtelli,John, Marion carter, Mark orr, and patricia Dittus. 200g. Trends in scxual risk behaviors, by nonsexuar risk behavior involvement, U.S. high school students, 1991-2007. Joumar of Ad,orescent Hearth 44: 272-27(). Srrrrtelli,John S., Laura Lindberg,Joyce Abma, Clea Sucoff McNeely, :rrd Michael Resnick. ?*P:.r^,.I 2000. Aclolescent seiJal'behavior: estimares and trends lillp-Py. nationally represenrative surveys. Famill prnnning penpectiues z2(4): ll-16-194. s.lrircfer, Eric. 2002. Gauging a revolution: l6mm film and the rise .f the rrnographic I'eature. Cinerna Journal 4l (3) : Z_26. . Scrrlccy, Dionne. 2009. Currents: a lawyer, some teens and a fight over "s<'xting" revealing image; sent via ceilphones prompt diitrict atrorney ro r rlli'r seminars but threaren felony charges . watt streetJiurnat, April zr. sl':1y, A"ii:y.!0!9, Sprinq Grove hosts titk o, ,,sextin{,,Wedneshay. %rA l)islxttch (York, PA), April 14. Srrritlr, st.Ph<:rr Ii 2tx)tl..f rril Iirr.irrvr:r'rilc chilcl pornographers? A reply to lrrrrli.ss<rr l,t.rrry. l'irLrrrirt.fttrrntal of-,\rtt.ial. l\tliy {f t.,,.,,i llr:b)lr_b44. 1x ll8 l"he [:thics of Imerging Meciia Soble, Alan. 1992. Sexuality and sexual ethics. In Encyclopedia of Ethi;cs, edL. C. Becker and C. B. Becker, pp.114l-47. NewYork: Garland Pub. Spinoza, Baruch. 1992. Ethics: l)reatise on the Emendation of the Intellect and, Selccted Letters.2nd ed. Trans. Samuel Shirley, ed. Seymour Feldman' Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. Mirror (London, UK). 2008. Miley: I was dumb, October 12. Whitaker, Daniel.|., Kim S. Miller, and I-eslie F. Clark. 2000. Reconceptualizing adolescent sexual behavior: beyond did they or didn't they? Iramily Planning Perspectiues 32(3) : 1 I 1*l 1 7. WinkleqJennifer. 2008. Will racy photos crash the Miley Cyrus machine? Sunday il Charltston Gazette, .};4ay 3. Woody,Jane D., HenryJ. D'Souza, and Robin Russel. 2003. Emotions and motivations in first adolescent intercourse: an exploratory study based on object relations theory. CanadianJouma.l of Human Sexuality 12: 35-51. Woody,Jane D., Robin Russel, HenryJ. D'Souza, andJennifer K. Woody. 2000. Adolescent non-coital sexual activity: comparisons of virgins and non-virgins. "l'm Here to Tell You it's 0K": The FCC Choirmon, Digitol IV, ond Lying to the .lournal of Sex Educati.on U Theralry 2b:261-268. Dispatch (York, PA) . 2009. The facts of life in a digital age, April 13. Government York ll ffi m{.$(fl ffi ffi{,}5ffi rL, ry*.ffi .l f*4imnri {Jniversi{y I till (i1Ar[[fi rl ilfpAJlI5 r&0M ]tlt others in this collection in that it deals not with the ethical issues in the content or use of an emerging med.ia, but rather with the ethical behavior of public officials charged with t'rtsuring ser-vice to the public from an emerging meclium. In 2009, overthe-air television stations in the u.S. converted their transmissions from irnalog to digital, arguably the most significant technological change to the medium since its introduction. The transition to digital multiplexed Iclevision largely went unnoticed by most viewers but put at risk service tcr older and lower-income audiences who were more likely to lack cable or sittellite service, new digital receivers, or converter boxes. The governnlont made available coupons intended to defray the cost of converter lroxes for those households, but some of the coupons expired before the ttt:ipients could use them. The head of the FCC caused a local uproar lry <:ffectively advising a questioner at a pubric forum to commit fraud lry lraving a friend or neighbor falsify an application for more coupons. 'l'lris <'hapter cxarnines the ethical behavior of public officials faceclwith llrr'< rrrrpt'tirrg rlrrlics lo rrphold regulations that impecle tht: provision ol lrllrt riclrl ;rrrlrlir lr.rr.lit :urrl l() (.nsll'('llrt.gr.t'lrrt'r.prrlrlir.uoorl. il9 h',