The age of consent: When is sexting no longer "speech integral to criminal conduct"?

Cornell Law Review

Volumn 97, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 369-404

  Haynes, Antonio M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859789975     PISSN: 00108847     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (137)

1. Henry J. Kaiser FAMILY FOUNDATION, U.S. TEEN SEXUAL ACTIVITY (2005) [hereinafter KAISER FOUNDATION], http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/U-S- Teen-Sexual-Activity-Fact-Sheet.pdf.
2. Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 114 n.11 (1990) (finding petitioner's overbreadth arguments unpersuasive as applied to a statute that defined nudity as including depictions of covered male genitals in a "discernibly turgid state").
3. Carolyn E. Cocca, JAILBAIT: THE POLITICS OF STATUTORY RAPE LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES, 23-24 (2004).
4. Ruth Jones, Inequality from Gender-Neutral Laws: Why Must Male Victims of Statutory Rape Pay Child Support for Children Resulting from Their Victimization?, 36 GA. L. REV. 411, 420 (2002).
5. Jan Hoffman, A Girl's Nude Photo, and Altered Lives, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 27, 2011, at A1.
6. Beth Slovic, Sext Crimes, WILLAMETTE WEEK, Dec. 1, 2010, http://wweek.com/editorial/3704/14839/.
7. Melanie S. Welte, Iowa Prosecutors and Principals Warn Students that Sexting Is Dangerous, Can Lead to Prison, ASSOCIATED PRESS, Dec. 13, 2010.
8. State v. Canal, 773 N.W.2d 528, 529 (Iowa 2009) (affirming obscenity conviction of eighteen-year-old boy for sexting pictures to a younger female friend).
9. Clay Calvert, Sex, Cell Phones, Privacy, and the First Amendment: When Children Become Child Pornographers and the Lolita Effect Undermines the Law, 18 COMMLAW CONSPECTUS 1, 58-60 (2009) (projecting that the difficulties of enforcing antisexting statutes combined with foreseeable costs would outweigh potential benefits).
10. Stephen F. Smith, Jail for Juvenile Child Pornographers?: A Reply to Professor Leary, 15 VA. J. SOC. POL'Y & L. 505, 506-07 (2008) (arguing that a prosecution-based response to minors producing pornographic images of themselves would "create far more problems than it would solve").
11. Mary Graw Leary, Self-Produced Child Pornography: The Appropriate Societal Response to Juvenile Self-Sexual Exploitation, 15 VA. J. SOC. POL'Y & L. 1, 50 (2007) ("The creation of child pornography through juvenile self-exploitation is a growing phenomenon with severe social harms, similar to that of other forms of child pornography possession, production, and distribution. . . . The fact of self-harm, alone, however, cannot justify a refusal to prosecute juveniles for self-exploitation.").
12. Miller v. Mitchell, 598 F.3d 139 (3d Cir. 2010), .
13. Nadine Strossen, United States v. Stevens: Restricting Two Major Rationales for Content-Based Speech Restrictions, 2010 CATO SUP. CT. REV. 67, 84-85.
14. Charles W. "Rocky" Rhodes, The Historical Approach to Unprotected Speech and the Quantitative Analysis of Overbreadth in United States v. Stevens, 2010 Emerging Issues 5227 (LexisNexis July 30, 2010).
15. Elizabeth C. Eraker, Stemming Sexting: Sensible Legal Approaches to Teenagers' Exchange of Self-Produced Pornography, 25 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 555, 555 (2010).
16. Mike Brunker, "Sexting" Surprise: Teens Face Child Porn Charges, MSNBC.COM (Jan. 15, 2009, 8:03 PM), http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/ 28679588/ns/technology-and-sciencetech-and-gadgets/(quoting attorney stating that the intent of child pornography statutes was to prevent the sexual abuse of children by "dirty old men in raincoats").
17. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 241 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
18. Catherine L. Carpenter, Legislative Epidemics: A Cautionary Tale of Criminal Laws That Have Swept the Country, 58 BUFF. L. REV. 1, 3 (2010) (discussing "legislative epidemics fueled by high-profile cases, emotion-laden rhetoric, and inaccurate, but embedded, assumptions about crime and criminals").
19. Erica Goode, Life Sentence for Possession of Child Pornography Spurs Debate over Severity, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 5, 2011, at A9.
20. Audrey Rogers, Protecting Children on the Internet: Mission Impossible?, 61 BAYLOR L. REV. 323, 326 (2009).
21. Amy Adler, Inverting the First Amendment, 149 U. PA. L. REV. 921, 935 (2001) ("The former Solicitor General of the United States concluded that 'the issue of children and pornography' is so 'incendiary' that people cannot discuss it rationally." (quoting former Solicitor General Drew S. Days III)).
22. GA. CODE ANN., § 16-6-4 (2008) (addressing aggravated child molestation).
23. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 250 (2002).
24. Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 2032 (2010).
25. State v. Canal, 773 N.W.2d 528, 529 (Iowa 2009).
26. Jessica Leshnoff, Sexting Not Just for Kids, AARP (June 2011), http://www.aarp.org/relationships/love-sex/info-11-2009/sexting-not-just-for- kids.html ("[T]he reality is that more and more of the 50-plus set, both single and married, routinely use text messaging to send tantalizing pictures and provocative words to their partner, according to relationship experts.").
27. Anthony Wayne, Sexting: Not Just for Teens Any More, TEXT MESSAGE BLOG (Apr. 12, 2009, 10:30 AM), http://www.textmessageblog.mobi/2009/04/12/ sextingadults/("Middle aged men and women . . . are now also getting involved in sexting.").
28. Sex and Tech: Results from a Survey of Teens and Young Adults, NAT'L CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT TEEN AND UNPLANNED PREGNANCY, 1 (2008), http://www. thenationalcampaign.org/sextech/PDF/SexTech-Summary.pdf [hereinafter NCPTUP Study].
29. Amanda Lenhart, Teens and Sexting, PEW INTERNET & AM. LIFE PROJECT, 4 (Dec. 15, 2009), http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2009/PIP- Teens-and-Sexting.pdf (reporting that only 4% of teenagers ages twelve to seventeen who own cellular phones "report sending a sexually suggestive nude or nearly-nude photo or video of themselves to someone else").
30. U.S. Teen Mobile Report: Calling Yesterday, Texting Today, Using Apps Tomorrow, NIELSENWIRE (Oct. 14, 2010), http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/ online-mobile/u-s-teenmobile-report-calling-yesterday-texting-today-using-apps- tomorrow/.
31. Donna St. George, 6, 473 Texts a Month, But at What Cost?, WASH. POST, Feb. 22, 2009, at A1.
32. Bryn Ostrager, Note, SMS. OMG! LOL! TTYL: Translating the Law to Accommodate Today's Teens and the Evolution from Texting to Sexting, 48 FAM. CT. REV. 712, 713 (2010).
33. Naked Photos, E-mails Get Teens in Trouble, FOXNEWS.COM, (June 5, 2008), http://www.foxnews.com/story/0, 2933, 363438, 00.html#ixzz16Qi1mRMI ("'I just don't understand why kids would do a stupid thing like that, '.
34. Sean D. Hamill, Pennsylvania: Judge Blocks Charges in Cell Phone Case, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 31, 2009, at A15, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/ 31/us/31brfs- JUDGEBLOCKSC-BRF.html.
35. Stephanie Steinberg, Sexting Surges Nationwide, and It's Not Just Teens Doing It; Young People Must Be Careful, Experts Say, USA TODAY, July 21, 2010, at D8.
36. Robert D. Richards & Clay Calvert, When Sex and Cell Phones Collide: Inside the Prosecution of a Teen Sexting Case, 32 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT. L.J. 1, 1 (2009).
37. Miller v. Mitchell, 598 F.3d 139, 143 (3d Cir. 2010) (noting defendant district attorney's public announcement that students found with "inappropriate images of minors" could be prosecuted for possession or distribution of child pornography under Pennsylvania law).
38. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944).
39. Elizabeth M. Ryan, Note, Sexting: How the State Can Prevent a Moment of Indiscretion from Leading to a Lifetime of Unintended Consequences for Minors and Young Adults, 96 IOWA L. REV. 357, 381-82 (2010). Secondary sexting involves the recipient of a sext sending the sexted message to a third-party without the original sender's consent.
40. A.H. v. State, 949 So. 2d 234, 239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007).
41. U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMISSION ON PORNOGRAPHY: FINAL REPORT 408 (1986) [hereinafter ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REPORT].
42. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 749-50 n.2 (1982) (collecting such statutes).
43. Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949)). Though this never seemed to be the Court's primary rationale, after Stevens it appears to be the only rationale the Court accepts. See infra Part III.
44. Child Protection Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-292, 98 Stat. 204 (1984).
45. United States v. Wiegand, 812 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1987).
46. United States v. Larkin, 629 F.3d 177, 181-82 (3d Cir. 2010).
47. United States v. Brown, 579 F.3d 672, 680 (6th Cir. 2009).
48. United States v. Wallenfang, 568 F.3d 649, 657 (8th Cir. 2009).
49. United States v. Rivera, 546 F.3d 245, 251 (2d Cir. 2008).
50. United States v. Frabizio, 459 F.3d 80, 87 (1st Cir. 2006).
51. United States v. Soderstrand, 412 F.3d 1146, 1155 (10th Cir. 2005).
52. United States v. Grimes, 244 F.3d 375, 382 (5th Cir. 2001).
53. United States v. Noel, 581 F.3d 490, 500 (7th Cir. 2009).
54. United States v. Williams, 444 F.3d 1286, 1299 (11th Cir. 2006) ("Because lascivious is not defined under the PROTECT Act, we apply its ordinary meaning of 'exciting sexual desires; salacious.'").
55. Amy Adler, The Perverse Law of Child Pornography, 101 COLUM. L. REV 209, 238-41 (2001) (reviewing changes in the definition of "child pornography" since Ferber).
56. A.H. v. State, 949 So. 2d 234, 239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007), immediately come to mind.
57. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 751 (1982).
58. N.Y. PENAL LAW § 263.00(3) (McKinney 2008)).
59. State v. Young, 525 N.E.2d 1363, 1368 (Ohio 1988)) (providing the Ohio Supreme Court's interpretation of the Ohio statute).
60. United States v. Knox (Knox I), 977 F.2d 815 (3d Cir. 1992).
61. Paul R. Abramson et al., SEXUAL RIGHTS IN AMERICA: THE NINTH AMENDMENT AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS 138 (2003).
62. United States v. Knox (Knox II), 32 F.3d 733, 737 (3rd Cir. 1994).
63. John A. Humbach, Sexting and the First Amendment, 37 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 433, 454 n.116 (2010) (explaining that any teen who takes even a semi-nude picture of herself is in "definite legal jeopardy").
64. United States v. Playboy Entm't Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 813 (2000).
65. Sable Commc'ns, Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126 (1989))).
66. Shannon Shafron-Perez, Note, Average Teenager or Sex Offender? Solutions to the Legal Dilemma Caused by Sexting, 26 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 431, 449 (2009).
67. B.B. v. State, 659 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1995)).
68. Salter v. State, 906 N.E.2d 212, 222-23 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (holding that when an age-of-consent law is inconsistent with the definition of minor in state's child-pornography law, vagueness issues prevent prosecuting persons for activities similar to sexting).
69. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 251 (2002).
70. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 764-65 (1982)).
71. Brown v. Entm't Merchs. Ass'n, 131 S. Ct. 2729, 2735 (2011).
72. Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 212-13 (1975))).
73. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 511 (1969).
74. Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 396-97 (2007).
75. Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986)).
76. Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968), it is far from clear that this rationale extends to the creation or possession of sexual speech.
77. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 878 (1997).
78. Janis Wolak et al., CHILD-PORNOGRAPHY POSSESSORS ARRESTED IN INTERNET-RELATED CRIMES: FINDINGS FROM THE National Juvenile Online Victimization Study vii (2005)).
79. Worldwide Ages of Consent, AVERT, http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm (last visited Nov. 23, 2011) (collecting ages of consent throughout the world and for all fifty states).
80. Siji A. Moore, Note, Out of the Fire and into the Frying Pan: Georgia Legislature's Attempt to Regulate Teen Sex Through the Criminal Justice System, 52 HOW. L.J. 197, 222-23 nn.217-18 (2008) (collecting recent statutory provisions regarding ages of consent throughout the United States).
81. John M. Krattiger, Comment, Sex-Cells: Evaluating Punishments for Teen "Sexting" in Oklahoma and Beyond, 63 OKLA. L. REV. 317, 349 (2011).
82. Julia Halloran McLaughlin, Crime and Punishment: Teen Sexting in Context, 115 PENN ST. L. REV. 135, 172 (2010).
83. Robert H. Wood, The Failure of Sexting Criminalization: A Plea for the Exercise of Prosecutorial Restraint, 16 MICH. TELECOMM. & TECH. L. REV. 151, 173 (2009). Thus, together, these two early articles seem to establish the typical framework for the sexting debate.
84. Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 111 (1990) ("[E]vidence suggests that pedophiles use child pornography to seduce other children . . . .").
85. Psychiatric Disorders: Pedophilia, ALLPSYCH ONLINE, http://allpsych.com/ disorders/paraphilias/pedophilia.html (last updated May 15, 2004).
86. Pam Cartor et al., Differentiating Pedophilia from Ephebophilia in Cleric Offenders, 15 SEXUAL ADDICTION & COMPULSIVITY 311, 312 (2008).
87. Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 351-53 (1997) (addressing constitutionality of indefinite civil commitment of violent sex offenders in the context of conviction for sexual molestation of children).
88. David Tuller, What to Call Foley, SLATE (Oct. 4, 2006, 5:59 PM), http://www.slate.com/id/2151018/.
89. Ray Blanchard et al., Pedophilia, Hebephilia, and the DSM-V, 38 ARCHIVES SEXUAL BEHAV. 335, 336 (2009). At any rate, engaging in sexual acts with a minor who has not attained the age of consent for that particular sex act is a crime.
90. Shari Roan, Revising the Book on Mental Illness: Experts Call for Listing Binge Eating and Gambling As Official Disorders, but Not Sex Addiction or Obesity, L.A. TIMES, Feb. 10, 2010, at A1.
91. Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc. 472 U.S. 491, 498 (1985).
92. State v. Canal, 773 N.W.2d 528, 528 (Iowa 2009).
93. Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 213-14 (1975).
94. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 577 (2003).
95. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 216 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting))).
96. Michael C. Dorf, All or Nothing Equality, DORF ON LAW (Dec. 13, 2010, 12:01 AM), http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2010/12/all-or-nothing-equality.html (suggesting that same-sex marriage restrictions in California might lack a rational basis because California unlike other states has already extended a great degree of equality to gay people, making the restriction on marriage in particular arbitrary and irrational).
97. United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 288 (2008).
98. A.H. v. State, 949 So. 2d 234, 238-39 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (rejecting as-applied challenge under Florida state constitution).
99. Robert Barnes, Justices Overturn Anti-Animal-Cruelty Law in Free Speech Case, WASH. POST, Apr. 21, 2010 at A3.
100. Joan Biskupic, Major Rulings of the 2009-10 Term, USA TODAY, June 28, 2010, at A5.
101. Linda Greenhouse, Op-Ed., The Court as Mr. Fix-It?, N.Y. TIMES, May 1, 2010, at A19.
102. Patricia Millet et al., Mixed Signals: The Roberts Court and Free Speech in the 2009 Term, 5 CHARLESTON L. REV. 1 (2010).
103. Lawrence Rosenthal, First Amendment Investigations and the Inescapable Pragmatism of the Common Law of Free Speech, 86 IND. L.J. 1 (2011).
104. JoAnne Sweeny, Do Sexting Prosecutions Violate Teenagers' Constitutional Rights?, 48 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 951, 970 n.124-25 (2011).
105. Lawrence G. Walters, How to Fix the Sexting Problem: An Analysis of the Legal and Policy Considerations for Sexting, 9 FIRST AMENDMENT L. REV. 98, 114 (2010). Leary, continuing to advocate for the prosecution of minors who sext, has attempted to understate the breadth of the Court's reasoning in Stevens.
106. Mary Graw Leary, Sexting or Self-Produced Child Pornography? The Dialog Continues-Structured Prosecutorial Discretion Within a Multidisciplinary Response, 17 VA. J. SOC. POL'Y & L. 486, 531 (2010).
107. New York v. Ferber, 457 U.S. 747, 766 n.18 (1982).
108. Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1067 (1992) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
109. Brown v. Entm't Merchs. Ass'n, 131 S. Ct. 2729, 2738 (2011).
110. United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 297 (2008).
111. Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008).
112. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 584-85 (2003) (O'Connor, J., concurring).
113. Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949).
114. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003). Thus in addition to Michael M., Lawrence further supports the idea that states may criminalize the sexual activity of minors.
115. United States v. Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 1584 (2010) (content-based distinctions presumptively invalid).
116. United States v. Playboy Entm't Grp., 529 U.S. 803, 813 (2000) (strict scrutiny for content-based restrictions).
117. Sable Commcn's, Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126 (1989)).
118. Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705, 2734 (2010) (Breyer, J., dissenting).
119. Barry P. McDonald, Speech and Distrust: Rethinking the Content Approach to Protecting the Freedom of Expression, 81 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1347, 1365 n.63 (2006)).
120. John Tehranian, Sanitizing Cyberspace: Obscenity, Miller, and the Future of Public Discourse on the Internet, 11 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 1, 4 (2003).
121. David Cole, Playing by Pornography's Rules: The Regulation of Sexual Expression, 143 U. PA. L. REV. 111, 114 (1994) ("Central to the First Amendment tradition is the notion that one has broader freedom in one's expression than in one's acts. When it comes to sex, however, the rule is reversed.").
122. Andrea Dworkin & Catharine A. MacKinnon, PORNOGRAPHY AND CIVIL RIGHTS: A NEW DAY FOR WOMEN'S EQUALITY 46 (1988) (describing how women and children are violently exploited during the making of pornography).
123. Catharine A. MacKinnon, WOMEN'S LIVES, MEN'S LAWS 316 (2005).
124. Am. Booksellers Ass'n v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323, 330 (7th Cir. 1985), .
125. Hugh Potter, PORNOGRAPHY: GROUP PRESSURES AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, 27-28 (1996).
126. Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 409-11 (1974) (per curiam). At the very least, a sexted image conveys the message "this is what I look like nude.".
127. Cass R. Sunstein, Words, Conduct, Caste, 60 U. CHI. L. REV. 795, 807-08 (1993) ("Many forms of pornography are not an appeal to the exchange of ideas, political or otherwise; they operate as masturbatory aids . . . .").
128. THE AMERICAN HERITAGE COLLEGE DICTIONARY 533 (3d ed. 2003).
129. United States v. Stocks, 35 M.J. 366, 367 (C.M.A. 1992) (noting that oral sex is "mere oral foreplay").
130. Sherry F. Colb, The Legal Line Between Prostitution and Porn, CNN JUSTICE (Aug. 12, 2005), http://articles.cnn.com/2005-08-12/justice/colb.pornography-1- prostitution-ringsexual-services-pornography?-s=PM:LAW (last visited Nov. 23, 2011).
131. People v. Paulino, 2005 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3430, at *10 (Sup. Ct. 2005).
132. People v. Freeman, 758 P.2d 1128, 1130-31 (Cal. 1988).
133. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003) (noting that "[t]he present case does not involve minors").
134. MacDonald v. Johnson, No. 10-852, (2011), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1574 (2011).
135. Adam Liptak, A Place on the Sex-Offender Registry for a Crime that May Be Off the Books, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 11, 2011, at A12 (describing the controversy surrounding the Virginia statute).
136. Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 392 n.4 (1997) ("It is always somewhat dangerous to ground exceptions to constitutional protections in the social norms of a given historical moment.").
137. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 248 (2002).