Blog

Earlier this week, I participated in a Summit organized by the National District Attorneys Association and the National Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse with a variety of professionals in the child protection arena. While other attendees focused in on the problem of child sex trafficking, my small group concentrated on the phenomenon of sexting and self-exploitation.

To begin, none of us really like the term sexting because it’s a buzzword, and drastically overused, and because youth don’t use it in reference to what they are doing. However, we understand that the term has been largely embraced by politicians, legislators, and the mass media, and the traction it has gained will be beneficial in further commanding attention and marshaling resources from those in positions who can help.

We believe sexting refers to “youth rendering themselves vulnerable to emotional, psychological, and physical victimization through the posting and sending of sexually-explicit or sexually-suggestive text, images or video.” I’m pretty sure that covers everything that can be involved.

We don’t necessarily believe that sexting should be referred to as “self-exploitation” as that infers that the victims are fully cognizant, aware, and in support of what they are doing in harming themselves. It places blame on the victim, and renders subjective our perspective of the phenomenon. When youth participate in sexting and then that text, image, or video is circulated outside of its intended recipient (which, incidentally, could also be considered “cyberbullying”), that youth becomes a victim, and no characterization should take away from that.

Sexting is largely an adolescent development issue. This is because of neurophysiological immaturity that youth have, which prevents them from considering long-term ramifications of their actions. Coupled with the disinhibition that cyberspace communication provides, and the geographic distance afforded by computers and cell phones, it’s very easy for youth to act unwisely and participate in this phenomenon. All of this said, we also realize that we (as adults) have a responsibility to step in. I think about the doctrine of in loco parentis, where we (e.g., the government, in the case of the legal professionals who gathered at this summit) have a legal responsibility to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent to protect a child from themselves (i.e., from behavior that can lead to significant victimization). Finally, we must recognize that this issue is a nontrivial problem, and that it requires formal responses in conjunction with the informal attempts that have been made to curtail the problematic behavior.

We have to realize that sexting occurs along a continuum. This ranges first from what my colleague Nancy Willard calls “stupid teen” behavior – which is just part of adolescent courtship rituals and relationships in a time where cell phones, texting, and Picture Mail are practically ubiquitous. Most cases of sexting seem to fall under this category. Then we have problematic boyfriend/girlfriend relationships where there is a measure of abuse or dating violence that takes place. Third, we have sexting that involves intentional exploitation – blackmail, extortion, coercion, deception and trickery. This might, by the way, also be termed “compliant victimization” – which occurs after a period of grooming and the building of trust (forensic pediatrician Dr. Sharon Cooper shared that distinction with me at the Summit). An adult may be involved in these situations as well. Finally, we have what can be termed self-exploitation – which involves youth who brazenly and willingly flaunt and advertise themselves online in a sexual manner. This could range from a youth creating a social networking profile with various sexually suggestive images, videos, or text, to a youth actively prostituting herself in similar environments.

We believe that this can and should be dealt with through multidisciplinary teams that involve law enforcement (school liaison officers, local/state departments, and Internet Crimes Against Children units), child protective services workers and agencies, schools, mental health professionals, medical professionals like pediatricians and nurse practitioners, and social workers. The primary goal of prevention should be addressed through education/awareness efforts to school professionals, other youth-serving professionals, community and after-school organizations, faith-based organizations, NGOs, and of course parents and youth. This multidisciplinary team should be created at the local level, and – if and when done well – it should be shared with, and promoted by, organizations at the state level (such as the Department of Education, Department of Family and Child Services, and similar entities) to the rest of the state. This will then enable other local areas to model their own multidisciplinary team from the initial, pioneering local team. As an eventual consequence, teams will spring up – consisting of a variety of professionals who play a role in stemming the tide of sexting – all around a state, each uniquely positioned and equipped to combat the problem.

Prevention should also occur through formal research of sexting. We need to identify correlative and contributive factors to the problem. We need to empirically determine and assess the range of consequences that befall a victim of sexting. We need to find out – if possible – a demographic and personality profile of those most likely to participate, and whether their background, past, upbringing, and life experiences render them more susceptible than others. Finally, we need formal evaluation studies to uncover best practices in dealing with sexting that can be shared with stakeholders and other constituent organizations.

I was in Naperville, Illinois about two weeks ago for a cyberbullying summit sponsored by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office.  The audience was comprised of select stakeholders in education, law enforcement, and technology industry.  The most relevant companies and constituencies were there.  Attorney General Lisa Madigan was on hand to kick the event off with some opening remarks.  Michelle Collins from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) followed with some general comments about cyberbullying and sexting and highlighted some of the efforts of the NCMEC in online safety education and prevention.  Next, I participated in a panel of experts along with Hemanshu Nigam from MySpace, Andrew Chaulk from the Vermont Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task force, and Nancy Willard from the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use.  We each provided a short introduction to our background and initiatives, then opened it up to the audience for questions and discussion.  As expected, it was a great discussion.

During lunch, Sarah Migas from the Illinois AG’s office described their efforts to educate youth, parents, educators and others about online safety issues.  In the afternoon we all were broken up into smaller groups to discuss in depth a particular scenario.  My group (Go Red Team!) discussed a sexting case from a few months ago.  We brainstormed possible prevention and response solutions and then presented our analysis to the larger group as a whole.  All in all it was a great event.

It is essential to bring all of these players together on a regular basis to develop a coordinated community response to cyberbullying.  Having pretty much everyone at the table really made for some interesting discussions.  The Illinois AG’s office is very much ahead of the curve with respect to these issues.  Stay tuned for more great resources from this group in the future.

My colleagues and I have been discussing the phenomenon of sexting in great detail recently, in light of the actions of two Texas school districts.  Before the beginning of this new school year, the Houston Independent school district (one of the largest in the nation) and the Dallas-Fort Worth school district banned sending sexually-explicit photos or messages over cell phones.  Some argue that this action is paternalistic, outdated, tyrannical, and even possibly unconstitutional.  Others applaud the decision, which reflects that administrators are finally treating this matter seriously.

Personally, I’m glad that the district is focusing in on the problem, but I’m not sure if this policy will actually be useful as students tend not to be deterred by heavy-handed rule-making.  I also don’t want its presence to take the place of purposed educational efforts to teach students about the responsible use of technology.  This sometimes happens when laws or policies are implemented as a way of quickly “dealing” with an issue without understanding its fundamental causes.

When giving presentations, I talk a lot about the need to change prevailing social norms regarding what is acceptable and unacceptable in the minds of youth.  I feel that our prevention and response efforts are going to be less than ideal and fruitful if we cannot effectively counter what society and the media are hammering into the minds of adolescents.  If the dominant message our kids are hearing is that sex and sexuality lead to popularity and celebrity status with very little (if any) public or personal fallout, youth will continue to push the proverbial envelope and the line between right and wrong in this area will be increasingly obscured.  Maybe that’s fine – maybe that’s part of our inevitable march forward into modernity.  But maybe it portends more problems than we’re going to be able to handle.

We’ve covered this issue a couple of times before on this blog, but given the interest I thought I would respond to some of the comments that have been posted and provide some insight gained from discussions I have had with folks over the past few months.  Some people have suggested that students have effectively no right to privacy in schools.  On its face, this is patently false – students do in fact have *some* privacy rights in schools.  That said, the rules are different in schools than in other public places.

All Americans are protected against “unreasonable” searches and seizures (4th Amendment), and what can be classified as “reasonable” varies depending on the context.  In schools, educators can generally search student property if (and only if) they have a good reason to believe that evidence exists therein which will reveal a violation of school policy.  If that evidence is found, the offending student may be subject to an administrative sanction by the school (e.g., detention, suspension, etc).  For example, if a credible student tells a principal that another student at school has a phone in the classroom that includes the answers to the algebra exam, then a search may be allowable given these circumstances.

This ability to search can be contrasted with that of law enforcement, who are required to abide by a higher standard.  School (or other) police officers must have probable cause that evidence of a crime exists in order to conduct a search of property.  To be clear, mere suspicion is not enough for law enforcement officers.  They must be able to articulate to a judge that probable cause existed (either before the search is conducted or after at trial).  For example, if a credible student informs a school resource officer (a sworn police officer) that another student has a gun in his or her backpack, clearly the officer would be able to search the backpack.

If we apply these principles to the issue of cell phones in the classroom, we know that educators or law enforcement officers can in fact search a cell phone under some circumstances.  Either way, there has to be some articulable level of knowledge that the cell phone contains evidence of a violation of school policy or criminal law (depending on who is performing the search).  In the opinion of many, simple possession of the phone in the classroom, while in itself a violation of school policy, does not provide license to search that phone by anyone.

Always remember that neither Sameer nor I are attorneys, and so this should not be interpreted as legal advice.  Furthermore, these are very complicated issues that cannot be adequately covered in a short blog posting.  There are many exceptions to the basic principles outlined above.  As always, consult an attorney who specializes in school and/or privacy law.  Even they, however, often disagree as to how these laws and court rulings can or should be interpreted.   Case law and precedent are currently being formed as schools and courts wrestle with these issues.  If you are aware of any incidents that have gone to court related to this topic, please pass them along so that we can analyze and distill what can be learned from them.

Justin and I have both blogged about the case where an assistant principal in Virginia was charged with possession of child pornography after trying to investigate a sexting case through the collection of evidence where a student emailed the evidence (a sexually-explicit picture of a minor) to his office computer.  The charges were eventually dropped, and the latest update is that the county school board has decided to remunerate him for his legal fees – which totaled to $167,621.64.  While I think the entire ordeal is highly regrettable, I’m pleased that the administrator will be able to recoup his legal expenses – a nontrivial gesture that should help him as he tries to move forward with his life.  The concern is that the entire ordeal will likely have a chilling effect on the way school administrators and educators do their job in safeguarding the youth under their care.  In fact, that is the general sentiment expressed by the school professionals with whom we share the story.  We have to push through the tendency to do nothing, or pass the responsibility to someone else, or trivialize the potential outcomes.  As mentioned in weeks past, my hope is that when an adult at school learns about sexting evidence, they immediately contact their school district attorney and local law enforcement.  These persons can then thoroughly investigate the case before advising that adult as to how best to discipline those involved.  With all of this said, we have got to communicate across counties and states to figure out exactly what policies districts are crafting (and how they are enforcing them) when it comes to students and cell phones in general.  I feel this is slowly happening with cyberbullying prevention and response strategies, but not with the issue at hand.