Child Autopornography in the Age of Snapchat - An Affirmative Defense
![handle is hein.journals/geojlege29 and id is 776 raw text is:
Child Autopornography in the Age of
Snapchat-An Affirmative Defense
SARAH E. BARR*
INTRODUCTION
Few disagree that child pornography demands a strong legal response, but
many debate whether self-produced child pornography warrants identical
measures.1 At present, self-produced child pornography falls within the auspices
of the federal child pornography statutes and is illegal. Voices that oppose
prosecuting underage autopornographers argue that Congress intended for
current child pornography statutes to protect children from abuse, and this
purpose is not met when child pornography statutes are used to prosecute
children who consensually and intentionally send pictures and videos of
themselves to consenting recipients.2 Others respond that Congress intended to
protect society from the broader ills of child pornography, and that those ills are
present even when underage autopornographers-children who willingly pro-
duce pornographic images and videos of themselves-act consensually.3 Thus, a
debate continues concerning the prosecution of underage autopornographers as a
generality.
Snapchat is a popular smartphone application (app) used to transmit
self-destructing photos and videos to particular friends who also use the app.
Although this Note focuses upon Snapchat due to its immense user base, many
other popular self-destructive messaging apps are subject to the same analysis,
including Wickr, Clipchat, TigerText, Yovo, Yeti, and Cyber Dust.4 Snapchat and
* J.D., Georgetown University Law Center (expected May 2017); B.A., University of Missouri (2014).
© 2016, Sarah Barr.
1. See, e.g., Susan Hanley Duncan, A Legal Response Is Necessary for Self-Produced Child Pornography: A
Legislator's Checklistfor Drafting the Bill, 89 OR. L. REV. 645 (2010); Carissa Byrne Hessick, The Limits of
Child Pornography, 89 IND. L.J. 1437 (2014); Mary Graw Leary, Self-Produced Child Pornography: The
Appropriate Societal Response to Juvenile Self-Sexual Exploitation, 15 VA. J. Soc. POL'Y & L. 1 (2007); Mary
Graw Leary, Sexting or Self-Produced Child Pornography? The Dialog Continues - Structured Prosecutorial
Discretion WithinA Multidisciplinary Response, 17 VA. J. Soc. PoL'Y & L. 486 (2010); Dr. JoAnne Sweeny, Do
Sexting Prosecutions Violate Teenagers'Constitutional Rights?, 48 SAN DIEGO L. REv. 951 (2011).
2. See, e.g., Hessick, supra note 1, at 1483.
3. See, e.g., Nicole A. Poltash, Snapchat and Sexting: A Snapshot of Baring Your Bare Essentials, 19 RICH.
J.L. & TECH. 14 (2013); Leary, supra note 1, at 5.
4. See Daniel Bean, 7 Snapchat Alternatives with Super-Secret Self-Destructing Messages, YAHOO! TECH
(May 28, 2014), https://www.yahoo.com/tech/7-snapchat-alternatives-with-super-secret-87031052364.html
[https://perma.cc/Y7BW-TNP3]; James A. Martin, 3 SnapchatAlternativesfor Self-Destructing Messages, CIO
(Dec. 23, 2014), http://www.cio.com/article/2862383/mobile-apps/3-snapchat-alternatives-for-self-destructing-](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/geojlege29&div=29&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Child Autopornography in the Age of Snapchat - An Affirmative Defense
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most