Ohio House approves teen sexting reform

SANDUSKY — Teens who share nude photographs shouldn't be charged with felony child porn crimes. That's the sentiment of House Bill 355, which was unanimously approved by the Ohio House. The bill, if made law, will give courts the option to prosecute teenagers accused of sexting — the sending of sexually explicit photos or messages — less severely than other people accused of child pornography crimes."(The bill) recognizes that kids will do stupid things," said state Rep. Steve Arndt, R-Port Clinton. "The current law is maybe a little harsher than it needs to be and this was an opportunity to offer younger people a second chance."Sexting is a national problem in schools. When the Register spoke to students, both boys and girls, at a local high school this spring, a majority of them admitted to either asking or being asked for nude photos.Under the current law, those teenagers could have faced a felony charge and mandatory registration as a sex offender if they were found with an inappropriate photo of another teen.The BillIf approved, House Bill 355 hopes to offer leniency to people under the age of 19 when they're caught receiving or sending nude photos of a victim older than 13, and less than four years younger than the offender.It would create a new criminal offense, "possession of sexually explicit digital material," a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by eight hours of community service unless a judge deems a more severe punishment is needed.The bill also provides a defense against the charges when a person didn't ask for the material, didn't share it and deleted it."The person may not have even wanted or asked for the photo they received, but under the current law they can still be prosecuted," Arndt said. "But this gives the court a way to give the individual another chance."But perhaps the biggest change is it would require courts to offer a sexting educational diversion programs for qualified people. If a teenager completes the diversion course it would allow for the dismissal of the charges.OppositionThe bill still needs to be approved by the Ohio Senate before it becomes law, but it faces opposition from organizations that feel it's too lenient or doesn't address the actual problem.The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association believe the law could limit a prosecutor's ability to charge people accordingly, the Columbus Dispatch reported.Louis Tobin, the executive director of the attorney association, told the Columbus Dispatch he feared teenagers would only face a misdemeanor even if the offense was more severe."They're considering the worst possible case, but the court still has the ability to make the decision to charge (an offender) with a higher offense," Arndt said.The court's ability to still charge teenagers with felonies was the problem the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Ohio highlighted when its chief lobbyist Gary Daniels testified against the bill in the House Criminal Justice Committee.The ACLU believes the creation of an additional misdemeanor offense, "possession of sexually explicit digital material," is counterproductive and unnecessary. The solution should, instead, be to eliminate from the criminal code the possibility of applying serious charges to minors in an unwanted manner, ACLU spokeswoman Celina Coming said.She said lawmakers claimed to create the new crime to give judges and prosecutors the option to not charge young people with more serious crimes."But there's a problem with that, judges and prosecutors aren't required to do what these legislators might want. Instead, they can simply continue to charge kids with felonies for sexting and maybe throw in this new charge as well for good measure," Coming said.If the bill is approved by the Ohio Senate and is signed it law, the ACLU fears the new offense it creates, defined as a "sex-related" in the bill, could have negative ramifications for young people and not fix any of the preexisting problems.Coming said even if the new law is approved, a 17-year-old in a legal consensual sexual relationship could still face lifelong punishment for possessing a nude photo of her 17-year-old boyfriend."The stigma behind any criminal conviction is severe, but to tar these kids as sex offenders could quite literally ruin their lives," Coming said. "This charge could make it impossible for young people to access opportunities for education, housing and employment for years to come."ACLU believes young people should be talked to about the risks of sexting, but punishing and lecturing them won't fix the problem.Reach reporter Michael Harrington at michaelharrington@sanduskyregister.com, follow the Register at Facebook.com/SanduskyRegister