Kozlowski: Sexting Silliness

Pennsylvania deals daily with problems caused by people who have an alternate… Pennsylvania deals daily with problems caused by people who have an alternate conception of morality and general human decency.

After all, that’s why we have prisons, courts, laws and 253 jokers in Harrisburg to create them.

Well, some members of the General Assembly have cooked up another good one — a necessary bill that still manages to be silly.

The bill, like most silly bills, has good intentions.

Last year, Wyoming County saw a judge bar a prosecutor from filing child pornography charges against three teens for sending interesting photos of themselves to others on their cell phones.

The prosecutor threatened to charge the minors with a felony — child pornography — unless they attended classes to convince them that sexting was wrong and also went on probation, according to Reuters.

This approach has an obvious problem.

First, child pornography statutes intend to protect children from being victimized by the sorts of shady characters who take pictures of naked kids.

But in this case, the perpetrators of the pornography were also its victims.

The crime committed was essentially a crime against oneself. Does this mean we should prosecute smokers for involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment?

Worse, felony charges simply do not vanish.

If you are a convicted felon, even better, if you are a convicted sex felon with minors somehow involved, boy, are you hosed.

The minors would have to register as sex offenders. They wouldn’t be able to live in certain places, and colleges and employers would find their criminal records an interesting read.

In short, it was horrible even to threaten these girls with felony charges for what amounts to childish behavior.

Enter the state legislature. House Bill 2189, introduced by Rep. Seth Grove, R-York, would make sexting a second-degree misdemeanor if the perpetrator is younger than 18.

The bill attempts to clarify a corner of the legal code: Sexting simply wasn’t possible in the Paleolithic — er, pre-cell phone age.

Right now, if a DA will charge somebody with a crime, the charge must be under a lewdness, harassment or child pornography statute.

This bill does do an admirable thing, namely, take away the power of overzealous prosecutors.

The bill is also fairly clear, and the wording leaves no doubt about what to call, say, a 17-year-old sending photos of a 6-year-old — rightfully, child pornography.

Perhaps the bill is necessary, after all. The clarity is to be greatly appreciated.

But that doesn’t make the bill any less silly. There’s still that part of the bill that makes it a crime to do things to yourself.

The purpose of a criminal code should be to prevent people from harming, or potentially harming, other people.

Can sexting harm others? Yes, but — though I risk my status as a card-carrying member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy for saying so — Witold Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union has a point.

He said that if sexting happens without the consent of one of the parties involved, the state can apply harassment and stalking statues.

This bill also has a perversity.

It’s a crime to send photos of yourself on a cell phone, but not a crime to pose for photos that your buddy shoots. That means whether you are treated as a criminal or a victim largely depends on who sends the photos.

Fundamental inconsistency also stems from age of consent.

Section 3122.1 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes defines statutory rape as sex between someone younger than 16 and someone more than four years older.

So it’s perfectly legal for two minors older than 16 to see each other naked, provided the means of the viewing are not electronic.

The biggest question of all is, how much of a deterrent effect will this bill have on undressed, unthinking youth? After all, if the idea that a “sext” might be broadcast to an audience of thousands of people over the Internet doesn’t scare you, why would the abstract thought of arrest do any better?

Making something illegal does not mean making it stop. It’s also possible that making sexting illegal would make it the new underage drinking.

It’s already risqué and titillating, and if it’s illegal, our young James Dean wannabes might be drawn to it.

Even though this bill might be necessary to prevent the conviction of minors on charges of felonious idiocy, sexting shouldn’t be considered misdemeanor idiocy either.

The bill might not be a bad idea, but it’s still silly.

E-mail Mark at kozthought@gmail.com. No pictures, please.