Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Victims, perpetrators and paternalism: image driven sexting laws in Connecticut

  • Published:
Feminist Legal Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In 2010, Connecticut implemented an offence prohibiting minors from engaging in sexting. This legislation was part of a range of reforms across the United States aiming to better tailor the criminal law’s response to youth sexting by distinguishing sexting from child abuse material. Drawing from submissions to the Connecticut General Assembly’s Sexting Bill, media reports and recent ‘sexting’ cases, this article adopts a feminist perspective and examines the justifications for and implications of this sexting statute. It argues that while aiming to create a distinction between child abuse material and sexting through a ‘lesser’ offence, these paternalistic reforms are informed by some of the same logics shaping child pornography/child abuse material law. Therefore, this statute is situated on a continuum of paternalistic legislation which utilises the constitutive expressive function of the criminal law to register anxieties about young people’s sexual and technological practices. As a result, this statute conflates victims and perpetrators of image based sexual abuses and fails to meet its deterrent and protective aims.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Sexting is a broad term which refers to the production, possession and distribution of intimate images (nude, semi-nude, sexual) via communication technologies (Wolak and Finkelhor 2011), Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram and email (Hasinoff 2015). In addition to images, sexting encompasses an array of sexual media textual exchanges which communicate ‘intimacy, desire [and] sexuality’ (Dobson 2018, 93–94). The term sexting is often used to encompass image based behaviours which are consensual and non-consensual (Dobson 2018), however, in this article I distinguish between consensual sexting, and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images in order to recognise the latter as a form of image based sexual abuse (McGlynn et al. 2017).

  2. This is an inclusive term used to describe those under the age of 18.

  3. For the purposes of this article the term ‘child pornography’ will only be used to describe legislation which utilises this term. In all other instances, I will use the term child abuse material. Additionally, when referring to the wider legislative and discursive landscape where both terms are deployed, I will use the term child pornography/child abuse material. This decision was made because the term ‘child pornography’ can obfuscate the sexual violence embedded in the creation, dissemination and consumption of these materials by prioritising perpetrators’ perspectives over victims’/survivors’ perspectives.

  4. AZ Rev Stat § 8-309; AR Code § 5-27-609; CO Rev Stat 18-7-109; CT Gen Stat § 53a-196 h; FL Stat § 847.0141; GA Code § 16-12-100.1; HI Rev Stat § 712-1215.6; ID Code § 18-1507A; 705 ILCS 405/3-40; KS Stat § 21-5611; LA Rev Stat § 14:81.1.1; NC Gen Stat § 14-190.5A; NV Rev Stat § 200.737; NJ Rev Stat § 2A:4A-71.1; NY State Senate Bill S5253B; OK H.B. 2541; PA Cons Stat § 18-6321; RCW § 9A.86.010; RI Gen L § 11-9-1.4; SD Codified L § 26-10-33; TX Penal Code§ 43.261; UT Code § 76-10-1204; V.S.A. § 13-2802b; WV Code § 61-8C-3B.

  5. It is important to note that some State revenge pornography statutes could potentially apply to NDII but this article focuses on legislation that specifically targets teen sexting or provides minor offences for young people under 18 who commit pre-existing image-based abuse offences.

  6. AR Code § 5-27-609; CT Gen Stat § 53a-196 h; CO Rev Stat 18-7-109; FL Stat § 847.0141; HI Rev Stat § 712-1215.6; ID Code § 18-1507A; LA Rev Stat § 14:81.1.1; NV Rev Stat § 200.737; PA Cons Stat § 18-6321; OK H.B. 2541; SD Codified L § 26-10-33; TX Penal Code§ 43.261, V.S.A. § 13-2802b and WV Code § 61-8C-3B.

  7. AZ Rev Stat § 8-309; GA Code § 16-12-100.1: 705 ILCS 405/3-40: NJ Rev Stat § 2A:4A-71.1: NC Gen Stat § 14-190.5A: RI Gen L § 11-9-1.4: UT Code § 76-10-1204 and WV Code § 61-8C-3B.

  8. AZ Rev Stat § 8-309; AR Code § 5-27-609; CO Rev Stat 18-7-109; CT Gen Stat § 53a-196 h; FL Stat § 847.0141; GA Code § 16-12-100.1; HI Rev Stat § 712-1215.6; ID Code § 18-1507A; LA Rev Stat § 14:81.1.1; NV Rev Stat § 200.737: NJ Rev Stat § 2A:4A-71.1:NY State Senate Bill S5253B; PA Cons Stat § 18-6321; OK H.B. 2541; RI Gen L § 11-9-1.4; SD Codified L § 26-10-33; TX Penal Code§ 43.261; UT Code § 76-10-1204: V.S.A. § 13-2802b and WV Code § 61-8C-3B.

  9. AZ Rev Stat § 8-309; AR Code § 5-27-609; CO Rev Stat 18-7-109; FL Stat § 847.0141; GA Code § 16-12-100.1; HI Rev Stat § 712-1215.6; ID Code § 18-1507A; 705 ILCS 405/3-40; KS Stat § 21-5611; LA Rev Stat § 14:81.1.1; NV Rev Stat § 200.737; NJ Rev Stat § 2A:4A-71.1; NC Gen Stat § 14-190.5A; NY State Senate Bill S5253B; PA Cons Stat § 18-6321; OK H.B. 2541; RI Gen L § 11-9-1.4; SD Codified L § 26-10-33; TX Penal Code§ 43.261; UT Code § 76-10-1204; RCW § 9A.86.010and WV Code § 61-8C-3B.

  10. AR Code § 5-27-609; CT Gen Stat § 53a-196 h; CO Rev Stat 18-7-109; FL Stat § 847.0141; HI Rev Stat § 712-1215.6; ID Code § 18-1507A; KS Stat § 21-5611; NV Rev Stat § 200.737; OK H.B. 2541; PA Cons Stat § 18-6321; SD Codified L § 26-10-33; TX Penal Code§ 43.261; V.S.A. § 13-2802b; WV Code § 61-8C-3B.

  11. CO Rev Stat 18-7-109; KS Stat § 21-561; RCW § 9A.86.010.

  12. RCW § 9A.86.010: RCW § 9A.86.010; RCW § 9A.86.010; OK H.B. 2541; PA Cons Stat § 18-6321; ID Code § 18-1507A; TX Penal Code§ 43.261.

  13. Sexually explicit conduct refers to sexual intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, sadistic/masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person (CT Gen State § 53a-193[14]).

  14. The undertakings include: behavioural assessment, substance abuse assessment, counselling, presentation to Juvenile Review Board on an appropriate topic related to the offence, community service, after school activities, interview, restitution, apology, journal of good decisions and monitoring (CYSA 2016a, 20).

  15. The presumption of childhood is, of course, selective. Constructions of childhood remain deeply racialised and based in white middle class values and there are numerous examples of over-criminalisation where children of colour are excluded from such presumptions of innocence (cf. Ocen 2015).

References

  • Adler, Amy. 2001. The perverse law of child pornography. Columbia Law Review 101 (2): 209–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albury, Kath, Kate Crawford, Paul Byron, and Ben Mathews. 2013. Young People and Sexting in Australia: Ethics, Representation and the Law. Kensington: ARC Centre for Creative Industries and Innovation/Journalism and Media Research Centre, the University of New South Wales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelides, Steven. 2012. The “second sexual revolution”, moral panic, and the evasion of teenage sexual subjectivity. Women’s History Review 21 (5): 831–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arcabascio, Catherine. 2009. Sexting and teenagers: OMG R U going 2 jail??? Faculty Scholarship 41: 1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, Jane, and Mouna Hanna. 2011. The gendered dimensions of sexting: Assessing the applicability of Canada’s child pornography provision. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law/Revue Femmes et Droit 23 (2): 405–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, Susan. 2006. A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday 11: 9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, Joanna. 2010. The child as victim and perpetrator: Laws punishing juvenile “sexting”. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 13 (1): 129–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bavelas, Janet, and Linda Coates. 2001. Is it sex or assault? Erotic versus violent language in sexual assault trial judgments. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless 10 (1): 29–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, Emma. 2010. The mobile phone = bike shed? Children, sex and mobile phones. New Media & Society 13 (4): 587–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, Danah, and Jenkins, Henry. 2006. Discussion: MySpace and Deleting Online Predators Act. MIT Tech Talk. https://www.danah.org/papers/MySpaceDOPA.html. Accessed 10 Jan 2008.

  • Briggs, Mallort. 2012. Send me a picture baby, you know I’d never leak it: The role of Miller v. Mitchell in the ongoing debate concerning the prosecution of sexting. Villanova Sports and Entertainment Law Journal 19 (1): 169–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvert, Clay. 2009. Sex, cell phones, privacy, and the First Amendment: When children become child pornographers and the Lolita Effect undermines the law. CommLaw Conspectus 18 (1): 1–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannon, Sherry. 2011. OMG! “sexting”: First amendment right or felony? Southern University Law Review 38 (2): 293–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassell, Justine, and Meg Cramer. 2008. High tech or high risk: Moral panics about girls online. In Digital Youth, Innovation, and the Unexpected, ed. Tara McPherson, 53–75. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlton, John. 2015. Sexting or child porn? Naugatuck teen faces legal issues after sending explicit photos of herself. Fox 61.

  • Citron, Danielle. 2009. Law’s expressive value in combating cyber gender harassment. Michigan Law Review 108: 373–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Citron, Danielle. 2014. Hate Crimes in Cyberspace. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coates, Linda, and Allan Wade. 2004. Telling it like it isn’t: Obscuring perpetrator responsibility for violent crime. Discourse & Society 15 (5): 499–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crofts, Thomas, and Murray Lee. 2013. “Sexting”, children and child pornography. Sydney Law Review 35 (1): 85–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz, Michelle. 2010. Testimony to the Judiciary Committee, An Act Concerning Sexting, Hearing, March 22, 2010 (Raised House Bill No. 5533). http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/JUDdata/Tmy/2010HB-05533-R000322-Office%20of%20the%20Victim%20Advocate-Michelle%20Cruz-TMY.PDF. Accessed 20 Feb 2011.

  • CYSA. 2016a. Juvenile Review Board Protocols and Procedures. Connecticut Youth Services Association.https://www.ctyouthservices.org/Customer-Content/WWW/CMS/files/JRB_PROTOCOLS_AND_PROCEDURES_Guidelines_-_FINAL.C2.pdf. Accessed June 2018.

  • CYSA. 2016b. “Before You Text” Sexting Prevention Educational Program for Connecticut. Connecticut Youth Services Association. https://www.ctyouthservices.org/Customer-Content/WWW/CMS/files/Before_You_Text_Curriculum.pdf. Accessed June 2018.

  • Danay, Robert. 2005. The danger of fighting monsters: Addressing the hidden harms of child pornography law. Review of Constitutional Studies 11 (1): 151–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, Terri. 2010. The new digital dating behavior—sexting: Teens’ explicit love letters—Criminal justice or civil liability. Hastings Communication and Entertainment Law Journal 33 (1): 69–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, Amy. 2018. Sexting, intimate and sexual media practices, and social justice. In Digital intimate publics and social media, ed. Amy Dobson, Brady Robards, and Nicholas Carah, 93–110. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dodge, Alexa, and Dale Spencer. 2018. Online sexual violence, child pornography or something else entirely? Police responses to non-consensual intimate image sharing among youth. Social & Legal Studies 27 (5): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Döring, Nicola. 2014. Consensual sexting among adolescents: Risk prevention through abstinence education or safer sexting? Cyberpsychology Journal of Psychological Research on Cyberspace 8 (1): 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, Susan. 2010. A legal response is necessary for self-produced child pornography: A legislator’s checklist for drafting the bill. Oregon Law Review 89: 652–698.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durham, Meenakshi. 2008. The Lolita Effect: The Media Sexualization of Young Girls and What We Can Do About It. New York: Penguin Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, Gerald. 1972. Paternalism. Philosophy and Public Policy 56 (1): 64–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, Asia, Jacobs, Holly, and Ruvalcaba, Yanet. 2017. Nationwide Online Study of Nonconsensual Porn Victimization and Perpetration: A Summary Report. Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. https://www.cybercivilrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CCRI-2017-Research-Report.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2018.

  • Egan, Danielle, and Gail Hawkes. 2010. Theorizing the Sexual Child in Modernity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Estrich, Susan. 1987. Real Rape. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrigno, Lorenzo. 2016. Newtown High School students charged in ‘sexting’ ring. CNN, 28 January.

  • Feyerick, Deborah, and Steffen, Sheila. 2009. Sexting lands teen on sex offender list. CNN, 8 April.

  • Forbes, Stephanie. 2011. Sex, cells, and sorna: Applying sex offender registration laws to sexting cases. William and Mary Law Review 52: 1717–1746.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frakes, Michael, and Matthew Harding. 2015. The effect of statutory rape laws on teen birth rates. American Law and Economics Review 17 (2): 409–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, Alisdair. 2010. Legal definitions of child pornography. Journal of Sexual Aggression 16 (1): 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godsoe, Cynthia. 2015. Punishment as protection. Brooklyn Law School Legal Studies 421: 1313–1384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godsoe, Cynthia. 2017. Recasting vagueness: The case of teen sex statutes. Washington and Lee Law Review 74 (1): 173–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, Melissa. 2012. The child pornography crusade and its net-widening effect. Cardozo Law Review 33 (4): 1679–1732.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasinoff, Amy. 2013. Sexting as media production: Rethinking social media and sexuality. New Media & Society 15 (4): 449–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasinoff, Amy. 2015. Sexting Panic: Rethinking Criminalization, Privacy, and Consent. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, Nicola, and Anastasia Powell. 2015. Embodied harms: Gender, shame, and technology-facilitated sexual violence. Violence Against Women 21 (6): 758–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, Nicola, Powell, Anastasia, and Flynn, Asher. 2017. Not Just ‘Revenge Pornography: Australians Experiences of Image-Based Abuse: A Summary Report. Gendered Violence and Abuse Research Alliance (GeVARA) Centre for Global Research Centre for Applied Social Research. https://www.rmit.edu.au/content/dam/rmit/documents/college-of-design-and-social-context/schools/global-urban-and-social-studies/revenge_porn_report_2017.pdf. Accessed 05 January 2018.

  • Hiffa, Amanda. 2011. OMG TXT PIX PLZ: The phenomenon of sexting and the constitutional battle of protecting minors from their own devices. Syracuse Law Review 61 (3): 499–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, Susan, and Mindy Lazarus-Black. 1994. Introduction. In Contested States, ed. Susan Hirsch and Mindy Lazarus-Black, 59–88. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • House Republican Caucus 2010. Rep Rebimbas: Sexting Law is Proactive. http://www.cthousegop.com/rebimbas/rep-rebimbas-sexting-law-is-proactive/. Accessed 20 Feb 2011.

  • Jane, Emma. 2017. Feminist flight and fight responses to gendered cyberhate. In Gender, Technology and Violence, ed. Marie Segrave and Laura Vitis, 45–61. London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Karaian, Lara. 2012. Lolita speaks: “Sexting”, teenage girls and the law. Crime, Media, Culture 8 (1): 57–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karaian, Lara. 2015. What is self-exploitation? Rethinking the relationship between sexualization and ‘sexting’ in law and order times. In Children, Sexuality and Sexualization, ed. Emma Renold, Jessica Ringrose, and Danielle Egan, 337–351. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinhans, Chuck. 2004. Virtual child porn: The law and the semiotics of the image. Journal of Visual Culture 3 (1): 17–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klettke, Bianca, David Hallford, and David Mellor. 2014. Sexting prevalence and correlates: A systematic literature review. Clinical Psychology Review 34 (1): 44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kushner, Alexandra. 2013. The need for sexting law reform: Appropriate punishments for teenage behaviors. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change 16 (3): 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Kasey. 2018. Teenage sexting statutes: A critical examination of Idaho code 18-1507A and an argument against the criminalization of consensually shared sexts. Idaho Law Review 54: 643–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, Sharon, and Zoë Peterson. 2012. Adolescent girls’ sexual empowerment: Two feminists explore the concept. Sex Roles 66 (11–12): 703–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leary, Mary. 2007. Self-produced child pornography: The appropriate societal response to juvenile self-sexual exploitation. Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law 15 (1): 486–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leary, Mary. 2010. Sexting or self-produced child pornography? The dialog continues—structured prosecutorial discretion within a multidisciplinary response. Virginia Journal of Social Policy and Law 17 (3): 487–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Murray, Thomas Crofts, Michael Salter, Sanja Milivojevic, and Alyce Mcgovern. 2013. “Let’s get sexting”: Risk, power, sex and criminalisation. International Journal for Crime and Justice 2 (1): 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenhart, Amanda. 2009. Teens and Sexting. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenhart, Amanda, Michele Ybarra, and Myeshia Price-Feeney. 2016. Nonconsensual Image Sharing: One in 25 Americans has been a Victim of “Revenge Porn”. New York: Data & Society Research Institute. Centre for Innovative Public Health Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, Gail. 2014. The symbolic purpose of hate crime law: Ideal victims and emotion. Theoretical Criminology 18 (1): 75–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGlynn, Clare, Erika Rackley, and Ruth Houghton. 2017. Beyond “revenge porn”: The continuum of image-based sexual abuse. Feminist Legal Studies 25 (1): 25–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, Zach. 2007. Protecting “innocence”? Deconstructing legal regulation of child sexuality. Australian Feminist Law Journal 27: 51–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, Kimberly, David Finkelhor, Lisa Jones, and Janis Wolak. 2012. Prevalence and characteristics of youth sexting: A national study. Pediatrics 129 (1): 13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, Heather. 2009. An Introduction to Childhood: Anthropological Perspectives on Children’s Lives. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • NBC Connecticut. 2016. Students Arrested in Newtown High Sexting Case. West Hartford: NBC Connecticut.

    Google Scholar 

  • NCTPTUP [National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy] 2008. Sex and Tech: Results from A Survey of Teens and Young Adults. http://thenationalcampaign.org/sites/default/files/resource-primary-download/sex_and_tech_summary.pdf. Accessed 02 March 2012.

  • Nunziato, Dawn. 2012. Romeo and Juliet online and in trouble: criminalizing depictions of teen sexuality (c u l8r: g2 g 2 jail). Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 10 (3): 57–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberman, Michelle. 2013. Two truths and a lie: In re John Z. and other stories at the juncture of teen sex and the law. Law and Social Inquiry 38 (2): 364–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ocen, Pricilla. 2015. (E)racing childhood: Examining the racialized construction of childhood and innocence in the treatment of sexually exploited minors. UCLA Law Review 62: 1586–1641.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, Kimberly, Michelle Drouin, Nicholas Yergens, and Genni Newsham. 2017. Sexting legislation in the United States and Abroad: A call for uniformity. International Journal of Cyber Criminology 11 (2): 218–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ost, Suzanne. 2002. Children at risk: Legal and societal perceptions of the potential threat that the possession of child pornography poses to society. Journal of Law and Society 29 (3): 436–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascoe, C.J. 2011. Resource and risk: Youth sexuality and new media use. Sexuality Research and Social Policy 8 (1): 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, Jasmine. 2015. Black girls and the (Im)Possibilities of a Victim Trope: The intersectional failures of legal and advocacy interventions in the commercial sexual exploitation of minors in the United States. UCLA Law Review 62: 1642–1675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podlas, Kimberlianne. 2011. The “legal epidemiology” of the teen sexting epidemic: How the media influenced a legislative outbreak. Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy 12 (1): 1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, Anastasia, and Nicola Henry. 2014. Blurred lines? Responding to “sexting” and gender-based violence among young people. Children Australia 39 (2): 119–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rebimbas, Rosa. 2010. Testimony to the Judiciary Committee, An Act Concerning Sexting, Monday March 22, 2010 (Raised House Bill No. 5533). http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/JUDdata/Tmy/2010HB-05533-R000322-Representative%20Rosa%20C.%20Rebimbas,%2070th-TMY.PDF. Accessed 15 Jan 2011.

  • Renold, Emma, and Jessica Ringrose. 2011. Schizoid subjectivities? Re-theorising teen-girls’ sexual cultures in an era of ‘sexualisation’. Journal of Sociology 47 (4): 389–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renold, Emma, Danielle Egan, and Jessica Ringrose. 2015. Introduction. In Children, sexuality and sexualization, ed. Emma Renold, Jessica Ringrose, and Danielle Egan, 1–17. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, Robert, and Clay Calvert. 2009. When sex and cell phones collide: Inside the prosecution of a teen sexting case. Hastings Communication and Entertainment Law Journal 32 (1): 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringrose, Jessica. 2013. Post-Feminist Education? Girls and the Sexual Politics of Schooling. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringrose, Jessica, Laura Harvey, Rosalind Gill, and Sonia Livingstone. 2013. Teen girls, sexual double standards and ‘sexting’: Gendered value in digital image exchange. Feminist Theory 14 (3): 305–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, Kerry. 2005. Childhood and Sexuality: Adult Constructions and Silenced Children. In Children taken seriously: In theory, policy and practice, ed. Jan Manson and Toby Fattore, 66–78. London: Jessica Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, Elizabeth. 2010. Sexting: How the state can prevent a moment of indiscretion from leading to a lifetime of unintended consequences for minors and young adults. Iowa Law Review 96: 357–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter, Michael, Thomas Crofts, and Murray Lee. 2013. Beyond criminalization and responsibilization: Sexting, gender and young people. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 24 (3): 301–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segrave, Marie, and Laura Vitis. 2017. Gender, Technology and Violence. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shade, Leslie. 2007. Contested spaces: protecting or inhibiting girls online? In Growing up online: Young people and digital technologies, ed. Sandra Weber and Shanly Dixon, 227–244. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, Megan. 2011. Sixteen, sexting, and a sex offender: How advances in cell phone technology have led to teenage sex offenders. Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law 17: 138–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Jonathon, and Chrysanthi Leon. 2006. The third wave: American sex offender policies since the 1990s. In International handbook of penology and criminal justice, ed. Shlomo Giora Shoham, Ori Beck, and Martin Kett, 733–754. Tel Aviv: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, Brian. 2011. Sexualizing the child: The strange case of Bill Henson, his “absolutely revolting” images and the law of childhood innocence. Sexualities 14 (3): 290–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, Deborah. 2010. Testimony to the Judiciary Committee, An Act Concerning Sexting, March 22, 2010 (Raised House Bill No. 5533). http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/JUDdata/Tmy/2010HB-05533-R000322-Public%20Defender%20Services-Deborah%20Del%20Prete%20Sullivan-TMY.PDF. Accessed 15 Jan 2010.

  • Szymialis, Jordan. 2010. Sexting: A response to prosecuting those growing up with a growing trend. Indiana Law Review 44 (1): 301–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiel-Stern, Shayla. 2009. Femininity out of control on the internet: A critical analysis of media representations of gender, youth, and MySpace.com in international news discourses. Girlhood Studies 2 (1): 20–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorne, Barrie. 1993. Gender Play. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valverde, Mariana. 2014. The legal regulation of sex and sexuality. In Oxford handbook of crime, sex, and gender, ed. Rosemary Gartner and Bill McCarthy, 635–652. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, Wendy, Janis Wolak, and David Finkelhor. 2013. Sexting: When are State Prosecutors Deciding to Prosecute? The Third National Juvenile Online Victimization Study (NJOV-3). Durham, NH: Crimes Against Children Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weins, W.J., and Todd Hiestand. 2009. Sexting, statutes, and saved by the bell: Introducing a lesser juvenile charge with an “Aggravating Factors” Framework. Tennessee Law Review 77: 1–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolak, Janis, and David Finkelhor. 2011. Sexting: A typology. Durham, NH: Crimes Against Children Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolak, Janis, David Finkelhor, Wendy Walsh, and Leah Treitman. 2018. Sextortion of minors: Characteristics and dynamics. Journal of Adolescent Health 62 (1): 72–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R.H. 2009. The failure of sexting criminalization: A plea for the exercise of prosecutorial restraint. Michigan Telecommunication Technology Law Review 16 (1): 151–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zydervelt, Sarah, Rachel Zajac, Andy Kaladelfos, and Nina Westera. 2016. Lawyers’ strategies for cross-examining rape complainants: Have we moved beyond the 1950s? British Journal of Criminology 57 (3): 551–569.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Level 5, X Block, 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia

    Laura Vitis

Authors
  1. Laura Vitis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Vitis.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vitis, L. Victims, perpetrators and paternalism: image driven sexting laws in Connecticut. Fem Leg Stud 27, 189–209 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-019-09407-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-019-09407-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation