Sexting has become a common mode of communicative sexual expression in the United States. Youths who sext with their peers are sometimes charged for the crime of producing and distributing child pornography. Such charges are inconsistent with the intent of American child pornography law, which is to protect children from abuse and exploitation. Understanding sext messages as a type of media content, this essay offers rhetorical translation as one strategy for identifying resources in Supreme Court doctrine to help distinguish between youth sexts and child pornography. Through rhetorical translation, this manuscript finds resources in four opinions concerning child pornography and the First Amendment for distinguishing sexting from child pornography. These distinctions pertain to how the two types of media are produced and distributed as demonstrated in a three-part interpretive model: motive and consent, privacy and consent, and market.
AlburyKCrawfordK (2012) Sexting, consent and young people’s ethics: beyond Megan’s story. Continuum Journal of Media & Cultural Studies26(3): 463–474.
2.
ArnesonP (2015) Judicial interpretation of civil rights and civil liberties: beyond the doctrine of Stare Decisis. Communication Law Review15(2): 22–35.
3.
Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. v Free Speech Coalition et al. 535 U.S. 234 (2002).
4.
CarlosC (2009) Translation as rhetoric: Edward Jerningham’s “Impenitence” (1800). Rhetoric Review28(4): 335–351.
5.
CarpenterCL (2016) Throwaway children: the tragic consequences of a false narrative. Southwestern Law Review45: 461–494.
6.
ColeD (1986) Agon at the agora: creative misreadings in the First Amendment tradition. The Yale Law Journal95(5): 857–905.
7.
DeHamerVJ (2009) Obscene cell phone fad comes calling. Cary News, 25February, p. 25.
8.
Doe et al. v. Bull Iowa S.2d 4:16-cv-00521 (2016a) Amended complaint for declaratory and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.
9.
Doe et al. v. Bull Iowa S.2d 4:16-cv-00521 (2016b) Complaint for declaratory and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.
10.
Doe et al. v. Bull Iowa S.2d4:16-cv-00521 (2016c) Memorandum in support of motion for temporary restraining order.
11.
DrouinMRossJTobinE (2015) Sexting: a new vehicle for intimate partner aggression?Computers in Human Behavior50: 197–204.
12.
DruckerSGumpertG (1995) Freedom and liability in cyberspace: media, metaphors, and paths of regulation. Free Speech Yearbook33: 149–164.
13.
EspositoLC (1998) Regulating the internet: the new battle against child pornography. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law30(2): 541–565.
14.
FalconeA (2010) New state laws target texting “sexting.”Hartford Courant, 30September: A12.
15.
FishmanDA (2004) Reading John Locke in cyberspace: natural rights and “the commons” in a digital age. Free Speech Yearbook41: 134–154.
FranceP (2005) The rhetoric of translation. The Modern Language Review100: 255–268.
18.
HasinoffAA (2012) Sexting as media production: rethinking social media and sexuality. New Media & Society15(4): 449–465.
19.
HasinoffAA (2015) Sexting Panic: Rethinking Criminalization, Privacy, and Consent. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
20.
HasinoffAA (2016) How to have great sext: consent advice in online sexting tips. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies13(1): 58–74.
21.
HenryNPowellA (2015) Beyond the “sext”: Technology-facilitated sexual violence and harassment against adult women. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology48(1): 104–118.
MitchellKJFinkelhorDJonesLMet al. (2012) Prevalence and characteristics of youth sexting: a national study. Pediatrics129(1): 13–20.
32.
Mueller-VollmerK (1989) Introduction: language, mind, and artifact: an outline of Hermeneutic theory since the enlightenment. In: Mueller-VollmerK (ed.) The Hermeneutics Reader. The Continuum Publishing Company, pp. 1–53.
33.
New York v. Ferber 458 U.S. 747 (1982).
34.
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990).
35.
PerryMJ (1992) Why constitutional theory matters to constitutional practice (and vice versa). In: LeyhG (ed.) Legal Hermeneutics: History, Theory, and Practice. CA: University of California Press, pp. 241–268.
36.
PrimackAJJohnsonKJ (2017) Student cyberbullying inside the digital schoolhouse gate: Toward a standard for determining where a “school” is. First Amendment Studies51(1): 30–48.
SetoMC (2013) Internet Sex Offenders. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
40.
SmithCR (2011) Introduction, methodology, and overview. In SmithCR (ed.) A First Amendment Profile of the Supreme Court. Plymouth: John Cabot University Press, pp. 1–14.
