Literature Review

The readings for this weeks topic Young people and sexting was Sexting,
consent and young peoples ethics: Beyond Megans Story (Albury & Crawford
2012) and Sexting as media production: Rethinking social media and sexuality
(Hasinoff 2013). Both texts explore the moral panics commonly associated with
the emergence and development of sexting- the sharing of explicit photos,
videos or messages of a sexual nature- and the consequent faults in how our
current legal frameworks have severe ramifications for participants, both
perpetrator and victim, as well as the often exaggerated attitudes of media
towards the sexting phenomenon.
There are two key points that are brought to light by Albury and Crawford (2012)
in their paper. Primarily, advertisements and campaigns as seen with Megans
Story (ThinkUKnowAustralia 2010) are an inaccurate representation of how
sexting impacts solely the instigator (Megan), only resulting in forms of
humiliation and public shaming as caused by her actions (Albury & Crawford
2012, p.465). There is no discussion of the recipients and distributors of the
sexual image. Moreover, there is a concurrent stereotype in society, as seen in
this campaign, that the girls who sends the images, particularly young girls, are
the ones at fault for the spread of the image, and the shame brought with it
(Dobson et al. 2012). This blaming makes it questionable in the face of our legal
frameworks, between the perpetrator and victim. Leading on from this, the
second key point is how our current child pornography laws do not encompass
the developing nature of sexting in contemporary media usage, particularly in
regards to consent, or lack of, when sending and receiving sexts (Albury &
Crawford 2012, p.469). As argued in this paper, the treatment of charging minors
do not take into consideration their knowledge of the legal regulations. This is

due to sexting becoming more and more a social norm, and has become a
communication method that, willingly or unwillingly, people partake in.
Furthermore, this diminishes the effect of the actions of others on the sex
offenders list, who have taken part of far worse acts of sexual aggression in
comparison.

Hasinoff further develops these ideas of injustice and incomprehension of the law
with sexting in society. Hasinoff, as discussed in Albury & Crawford, draws upon
ideas of consent, in where underage teenagers are legally allowed to have sexual
intercourse, but are also able to be charged as criminals for sexting to one
another, an act which is arguably less dangerous for both parties. She argues
that the current child pornography laws are a result of moral panics regarding
the practises of sexting, encouraging girls to be anonymous online, and stay
away from social networking services which creates connections with strangers
(Hasinoff 2013, p.453). Hasinoff argues that there are many positive aspects to
sexting, likening it to the positive aspects of producing digital media in general.
Most noticeably, is how sexting is a form of self-expression, allowing young
people to explore their sexuality, communicate in the safety of their private
space, safe pleasure and develop their knowledge of sex in general (2013,
p.454). Hasinoff finds that a more open-minded model will quench these moral
panics regarding sexting, and adjust the legal regulations so that the distribution
of sexting material is only punished in respects to the consent of the producer.

Critical Reflection
There is an obvious connection between society, and how forms of
communication are increasingly growing more intimate in nature by means of

sexting or otherwise. There are several thoughts made apparent in both reading
regarding this. Namely, the relationship between current child pornography
legislation and sexting, the targeting of young females in regards to sexting, and
technology and its influence on sexting culture.

In relation to the moral panics introduced earlier in the course, Schirato outlines
a process which is instigated by media as a threat, followed by the naming and
shaming of perpetrators, and public retaliation against the government in their
response to whatever is being panicked about (2010, p.97). Sexting follows these
process, as presented in both papers. The portrayal of Megan in Megans Story
(ThinkUKnow Australia 2010) makes it evident that there is a lack of
consideration for the victim, Megan, seemingly telling audiences that she
deserved the treatment she received. Generally speaking, there is a tendency to
attack the perpetrators, who are usually young females, rather than the
distributors themselves (Dobson et al. 2012). Hasinoff expands on this,
addressing how the 2SMRT4U campaign teaches girls to hide themselves online
in fear of paedophiles or other sex offenders to take advantage of them. Moral
panics surrounding sexting often create direct links between taking part in
sexting, and being a digital target to adults interested in child pornography.
Moral panics are often exaggerated; Hasinoff uses a case where a CBS reporter
finds that sexting causes a rise in teen pregnancies, despite evidence showing
otherwise (Braver 2009). Funnell states that the foundation of these panics
regarding sexting being formed around gender stereotypes in where women are
more vulnerable to victimisation, consequently leading to either heightened
peaks of sexual activity, or self-damaging consequences (2014). Actual instances
of sexual aggression, such as harassment and rape, are somewhat diminished
due to its severity being compared to sexting (Hasinoff 2013, p.452-453). Hence,

there needs to be changes to how sexting is addressed in the media, and a

reform of how sexting is educated. There needs to be more focus on legal
repercussions and to provide all sides of the sexting debate for individuals to
form their own judgement.
As a consequence of these moral panics risen by society, the legal actions taken
by governments are incredibly unjust, particularly to young, generally unknowing
people. Both papers argue that both consensual sexting and sexting that results
in malicious behaviour are both treated equally under the current laws. This is in
consideration that sexting is a relatively new practise, mostly practised by
underage people. It is quite bizarre that no matter the nature of sexting, and
whether you are producing or receiving (knowing you will receive these explicit
images or not) are charged with possession or distribution of child pornography
and placed on the sex offenders list. As Goggin and Crawford found in their
Young, Mobile, Networked study (2011), many individuals take part in sexting as
a means of strengthening relationships, discussing sexual needs, and for nonsexual situations such as friendship bonding (Albury & Crawford 2012, p.467468). This is done without realising that, consensual or not, they are still able to
be faced with criminal charges (2012, p.469). It is apparent that legislation needs
to change to incorporate definitions of consensual sexting, and non-consensual
distribution of explicit sexting material.
There is large emphasis on sexting by youths, and the frequent use of portable
devices in the act of sexting. Goggin speculates that the ease in which young
people are able to access forms of technology, and therefore communication
platforms, is a reason why generations of people are engaging with sexting at
such a young age (2012, p. 84-85). Moreover, there is an emphasis on the
development of online forms of communication, such as Facebook, Snapchat and
Twitter, while encourage individuals to connect with one another more and more

through the internet, rather than through phone calls (Strassberg et al. 2010, p.
15). In consideration of Megans Story, there lies a gender-specific targeting of
young girls with sexting, rather than society as a whole. As Hasinoff finds, there
tends to be a focus upon young girls, queer girls, girls from cultural minorities
and working-class girls having an expectation to present themselves in a sexualenticing manner. This double-standard is seen in sexting, where boys appear
more bold and admirable in their confidence, while girls are depicted as being
slutty (Walker 2012, p. 169). In reality, the way technology has become so
engrained in our lives, it is hard to categorise sexting by its intent, and to judge it
by law. There needs to be a distinction on the participants, and their use of
sexting, and an instilling of moral boundaries with sexting, so that sexting is able
to be judged clearly by regulation.

Research Scope
Despite all the criticisms presented regarding legislation and sexting, it is still
difficult to distinguish who is at fault. Sexting can be seen two ways; the
individual who takes the explicit image or video is at fault for not acknowledging
the possibilities of it being distributed. On the same level, the distributors are at
fault for spreading these explicit images or videos without the consent of the
producer. In a society where applications such as Snapchat and Tinder exist,
sexting is seemingly encouraged. On the other hand, privacy or lack of is also
becoming more apparent, with websites dedicated to sexting images of expartners. Sexting, in regards to the law, is a controversial grey area, in which it is
difficult to form regulations which can satisfy everyone in society. In order to
improve on this, research into how sexting is conducted, and the reasons behind
this, should assist in aiding the future of sexting as a risk. Most importantly,

studies into youths of all genders should be conducted, so that current laws do
not treat underage people who engage with sexting unfairly.

Reference List
Albury, K & Crawford, K 2012, Sexting, consent and young peoples ethics:
Beyond Megans Story, Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, vol.
26, no. 3, pp. 463-473.
Braver, R 2009, Targeting Teens for Sexting, CBS News, accessed 4th November
2014
Dobson, A, Rasmussen, M & Tyson, D 2012, Sexting teens: decriminalizing
young peoples sexual practices, The Conversation, accessed 4th November
2014

Funnell, N 2014, Teen Sexting Panic, Australian Policy Online, accessed 15

October 2014, http://apo.org.au/video/teen-sexting-panic
Goggin, G 2012, Youth culture and mobiles. Mobile Media & Communication, vol.
1, no.1, pp. 83-88.
Hasinoff, A 2013, Sexting as media production: Rethinking social media and
sexuality, New Media and Society, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 449-465
Strassberg, D, Mckinnon, R, Sustaita, M, & Rullo, J 2013, Sexting by High School
Students: An Exploratory and Descriptive Study, Archives Of Sexual
Behavior, vol. 42, no.1, pp. 15-21.
Walker, S 2012, Sexting and Young People: A Qualitative Study, University of
Melbourne, accessed 15 October 2014, <https://minervaaccess.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/37683/287493_SJW%20thesis
%207-11-12.pdf?sequence=1>