Notities bij boeken

Sabine K. WITTING
"Regulating bodies: the moral panic of child sexuality in the digital era"
Critical Quarterly for Legislation and Law, Vol. 1/2019, p. 5-38

"Zusammenfassung

Mit zunehmendem Zugang zum Internet hat sich das explorative Verhalten von Kindern zu Sexualität auch auf den Onlinebereich ausgeweitet. Dies führte zu einer Wiederbelebung der moralischen Panik rund um die kindliche Sexualität, insbesondere in Bezug auf das wachsende Phänomen des einvernehmlichen „Sextings“ zwischen Minderjährigen. Diese moralische Panik wird durch die Sorge um sexuellen Missbrauch und sexuelle Ausbeutung von Kindern im Kontext von „Kinderpornographie“ noch weiter befeuert. In dem Bestreben, Kinder vor solchen Straftaten zu schützen, wird einvernehmliches „Sexting“ zwischen Minderjährigen in manchen Ländern als Produktion und Verbreitung von „Kinderpornographie“ gewertet und führt so zur Strafverfolgung beteiligter Kinder als SexualstraftäterInnen. Das Recht auf Schutz vor sexuellem Missbrauch und Ausbeutung ist hier das dominierende Narrativ. Dieser Artikel argumentiert, dass die Kriminalisierung von Kindern aufgrund einvernehmlicher sexueller Erkundungen im Online-Raum kontraproduktiv für das Ziel des Kinderschutzes ist. Stattdessen sollten Länder in Fällen von einvernehmlichen „Sexting“ zwischen Minderjährigen einen auf Rechten basierenden Ansatz verfolgen und die widerstreitenden Interessen von Autonomie und Kinderschutz dadurch ausgleichen, dass sie das einvernehmliche „Sexting“ zwischen Minderjährigen aus dem Geltungsbereich der „Kinderpornografie“ ausschließen. " [mijn nadruk] (5)

[Heldere samenvatting, goed standpunt. ]

(6) I. Introduction

"The regulation of sexual offences is the regulation of bodies. What is considered sexually ‘deviant’, which practices and preferences cross the line to the socially acceptable, which body enjoys which degree of sexual autonomy – sexual offences are infiltrated by society’s understanding of normative sexuality." [mijn nadruk] (6)

"Another contested area of sexual rights concerns the sexuality of children. While the age of consent to sexual activity differs greatly around the world, the most common age of consent is set at 16 to 18 years. It has to be noted, however, that the age of consent varies greatly between boys and girls, as well as hetero- and homosexual children. While the regulation of a minimum age of consent to sexual activities aims to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation by adults, it can create legal challenges regarding consensual sexual activities between children. As sexual exploration, ranging from hugging to kissing to sexual intercourse, is part of the normal sexual development of teenagers, the age of consent law is at risk of criminalising consensual sexual activities between minors. As the laws which aim to protect children should not punish them for developmentally normal sexual activity, many countries enacted so-called Romeo-and-Juliet clauses, which – dependent on the country context – exempt sexual activity between teenagers from prosecution, if the partners are not more than two or three years in age apart. This age gap is considered close enough to minimise the risk of abuse of power or authority of the older partner, and to ensure that both partners can make an informed and autonomous decision on whether to engage in sexual activity. " [mijn nadruk] (7)

[Belachelijk, die criminalisering, zowel als die Romeo-en-Julia-clausules. Het is allemaal eindeloos willekeurig en gebaseerd op de verkeerde uitgangspunten.]

"While contact sexual activity between children is nowadays widely acknowledged within the above-mentioned framework, the sexual exploration of children through the use of information and communication technologies has revived the moral panic around child sexuality. Children and adolescents below the age of 18 years constitute one third of internet users worldwide." [mijn nadruk] (7)

"A common form of such online sexual exploration is ‘sexting’. The term is a portmanteau of the words ‘sex’ and ‘texting’ and describes self-produced sexually suggestive or explicit images and texts and distribution thereof by cell phone messaging, internet messenger, social networks et al. Further, there is a distinction between ‘primary sexting’, which describes material produced and possessed with the consent of the depicted person(s), and ‘secondary’ sexting, which describes the further dissemination of such material without the consent of the depicted person." [mijn nadruk] (8)

"With teenage sexting material and child pornography objectively depicting the same behaviour, i.e. sexual activity involving a minor, the law in most countries does not differentiate under which circumstances the material was produced, but criminalises the production, dissemination and possession of both groups of materials as child pornography offences. As ‘primary’ sexting material is produced and shared with the consent of the depicted person(s), without use of force or abuse of authority, it does not depict the sexual abuse and exploitation of a child. However, there is an inherent risk for sexting material to become more widely available than initially intended. As the depicted person naturally loses control of the material once shared, they rely on the confidentiality and integrity of the receiver. Such trust is often times broken when the relationship ends, and the material is widely circulated to embarrass the former partner. This risk proves to be a reality when looking at the number of self-produced sexting material available on child pornography websites, which has been increasing over the past couple of years. In conclusion, the same picture, depending on the context it is available in and depending upon the person who accesses it, can become abusive towards the child, even though the initial production was non-abusive. This poses the pivotal question to the legislator: due to the inherent risk of abuse and exploitation for self-produced material, should such material be categorised as child pornography from the beginning and hence anyone – irrelevant of the specific context – who produces, disseminates and possesses such material be considered a child pornography offender? Or does the law have to find a way of addressing ‘primary’ sexting and child pornography differently? This article aims to investigate the criminal response to ‘primary’ sexting from a comparative perspective, and through a constitutional lens. As the regulation of teenage sexting touches upon core questions of teenage sexuality, the private sphere as well as freedom of expression (II.), this publication portrays how the US, Canada, and Germany, have addressed the topic of teenage sexting (III.), before proposing a solution to this complex question (IV.) and (V.)." [mijn nadruk] (8-9)

[Raar wereldje, dat van 'het recht'. Vaak eindeloos ver verwijderd van de praktijk. Natuurlijk had men al meteen kunnen bedenken dat sexting en kinderpornografie nauwelijks meer met elkaar te maken hebben dan dat er jongeren in beeld zijn gebracht die iets seksueels doen. De intenties zijn nogal verschillend, nietwaar. Zo dom. Waarom zou je de uitwisseling op zich straffen? Dat iemand dat materiaal zonder toestemming van de zender verspreid is verkeerd, daar draait het dus om, maar dan nog gooi je daar niet de term 'kinderpornografie' tegen aan, ook al zou dat materiaal op kinderpornosites beland zijn - de wegen daar naar toe zijn waarschijnlijk onnaspeurbaar.]

Noot 18:

"The term ‘child pornography’ has been widely criticised as it is deemed to sugarcoat the abusive and exploitative character of the material, see Sabine K. Witting, The "Greyscale" of "Child Pornography": Of Mangas, Avatars and School Girls: Part 1, Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, Issue 3 (2018), p. 61: ‘Globally there is a debate over the term “child pornography” as opposed to the more broadly accepted term “child abuse material” (UNODC, Study on the Effects of New Information Technologies on the Abuse of Children (2015), p.8). “Child pornography” may create the impression that “pornography” and “child pornography” are closely related, and hence implies that the child could give consent to “child pornography”." [mijn nadruk] (8)

[Dat laatste lijkt me een te simpel idee van 'consent'. Je kunt je afvragen of alle actoren in pornografie met volwassenen werkelijk vrij kunnen instemmen met dat werk. En je kunt ook niet zo maar zeggen dat kinderen nooit instemmen met deelname aan kinderporno.]

"Digital exploration poses risks for children, such as unwanted dissemination of material, which can – potentially, not inevitably – turn into harm. The differentiation between harm and risk is crucial in guiding the debate around teenage sexting." [mijn nadruk] (10)

"Before elaborating on the various elements of child pornography offences, it is crucial to understand the impact of child pornography offences on the victim. Material depicting the sexual abuse and exploitation of children does not only cause significant physical and psychological harm to the depicted child during the production, but also re-traumatises the child every time the material is accessed or shared. Victims of child pornography offences oftentimes face great difficulties in ‘closing the chapter’, as they are continuously exposed to abuse and exploitation through the circulation of their material. They might live in a constant state of anxiety, whether and when the material will surface again, and that someone will recognise or expose them. It is therefore not surprising that the national legislations impose harsh sentences on the production, dissemination, or possession of such material. "(11)

[Dat is dus de 'slachtofferbenadering'. Alsmaar roepen hoe erg het allemaal is maakt dat mensen zelf ook gaan denken dat het allemaal zo erg is. Gevolg: schaamte, etc. etc. Leer mensen om te begrijpen wat er gebeurt, maak ze weerbaar, leer ze trots te zijn op wat ze doen, leer ze dat zij niet het probleem zijn. Maar ja, dan heb je dus een heel andere normatieve visie op 'misbruik' en zo verder. ]

"However, most child pornography provisions have one element in common, i.e. that the consent of the depicted child is always considered invalid and hence lack of consent is not a relevant element of child pornography offences. The rationale behind this approach is twofold. Firstly, the perceived consent of the child should not be a valid defence in court for the perpetrator. It is a common misperception that all child pornography depicts use of force or violence, and that the child victim always looks distressed, is in pain or crying. However, such material does not always depict ‘obvious’, ‘visual’ harm to the child. Children might be depicted as if they enjoy or are at least compliant with the sexual activity. This is however rather a result of a grooming process or the child’s way of accepting the abuse, than an expression of informed consent. Therefore, the mere expression or conduct of the child does not give any further information on the child’s actual level of consent. Secondly, and even more importantly, child pornography provisions seem to operate on the presumption that the depicted act is unlawful anyway, and hence there is no reason to consider the consent of the child if he or she could not consent to the depicted act in the first place. "(12)

[Wat een hypocriete manier om daar naar te kijken. Ook al zou een kind seks leuk vinden dat vindt het seks dus niet leuk, dat is allemaal maar manipulatie van de volwassenen. Kinderen worden dus niet voor vol aangezien, worden geacht geen plezier te kunnen beleven aan seks, en zo verder. En dat is aantoonbaar onwaar. Wat in de wet staat is hier voortdurend het uitgangspunt. Maar je kunt wat meer vraagtekens plaatsen dan alleen bij wat de wet over 'sexting' zegt, je zou heel het idee 'bescherming van kinderen tegen seksueel misbruik' fundamenteel tegen de loep moeten houden. De wet - en vooral dan ook nog eens de internationale wetgeving van VN, Europa, etc. - is bijzonder conservatief.]

Dan de conclusies na de bespreking van de drie landen en hun wetgeving op dat punt:

"Apart from Sharpe and Barabash, which mention freedom of expression and a ‘right to document’ in their deliberations, it is surprising that the teenage sexting debate is mainly conducted from a child protection, rather than a child rights angle.
It is crucial to stress that regulation of teenage sexting infringes upon such teenager’s most private sphere (sexuality) and hence the criminalisation of such behaviour necessarily needs to be discussed within the realm of child rights, such as freedom of expression, right to privacy or other rights dealing with a person’s sexuality or sexual expression. The key question is hence whether this extends to a right for minors to record and document their own lawful sexual activities, in particular, sexual conduct and nudity, and consensually share and possess this content. " [mijn nadruk] (30-31)

"Like the dissenting opinion in Sharpe, scholars have argued in favour of a criminalisation of teenage sexting, either as child pornography offence or as separate, more lenient criminal offence. The arguments for such criminalisation range from the limited value of the expression, the risks related to teenage sexting, to the deterrent effect of such legislation. When setting out these arguments, the language used usually describes the child as an innocent being, who must at all costs be protected against premature ‘sexualisation’, and hence reveals an ‘angel/devil dichotomy’ underlying these arguments. And if a child dares to break out of this label, he or she faces severe consequences. Additionally, girls face the consequences of a ‘virgin/whore dichotomy’, as they are not supposed to have any sexual desire in the first place. Children, and in particular girls, are hence deprived of any sexuality, let alone a right to express such sexuality, and seem to be only granted a right to protection from sexual exploitation. This approach is – again – in particular oppressive for girls, as it continues the old narrative that the only way to keep girls save is to exclude them from the platforms of participation. These underlying dynamics seem to be the true cause for the urge to criminalise consensual teenage sexting." [mijn nadruk] (34-35)

[Ja, zo zit dat in elkaar.]

"When debating consensual sexting between minors, it is remarkable that this phenomenon is primarily discussed in the realm of child pornography. While child pornography and teenage sexting have merely the material depicting sexual activity of children in common, their underlying dynamics are fundamentally different." [mijn nadruk] (36)

[Precies. Dat is de kern van de zaak.]

"One of the key interventions to ensure that risk does not turn into harm is the capacitation of children to detect risks and give them tools how to respond to them. This can be achieved through comprehensive sexuality education, focusing on gender stereotypes, sexual autonomy, and building healthy sexual relationships with oneself and others, both online and offline. At the same time, creating a safe and confidential environment for questions around sexuality and sexual exploration, in schools, homes and the community, could assist in promoting safer sex(ting). As these interventions are not a quick fix but require long term investments in the education and social welfare sector, they might be less popular than just criminalising such behaviour." [mijn nadruk] (38)

[Precies. Het is gewoon een combinatie van kortzichtigheid en luiheid. Wat nodig is is het weerbaar maken van jongeren door ze goed te informeren, door alles bespreekbaar te maken, en zo verder.]