What do you do when child pornography is for, made by and sent by the kiddies themselves?

Overland Park teenagers have recently discovered the consequences of sending raunchy photos of themselves, according to the article “What to do when children send nude photos via their cell phone” by Laura Bauer and Joe Lambe in The Kansas City Star on Feb. 7. An Overland Park high school student was investigated for sending naughty pictures of herself to her boyfriend. After they broke up, he distributed them to his friends. Sending nude or partially nude photos of minors with a cell phone is called “sexting,” according to the article.

This phenomenon is not limited to Johnson County. A girl in Ohio was charged for sending nude photos of herself to classmates. If she is convicted for felony charges, she may have to register as a sex offender for 20 years.

I don’t think minors should engage in this behavior, but if they do, state law should not charge them.

In The Kansas City Star article, Deputy Tom Erickson, spokesman for the Johnson County Sheriff’s office, said, “Nude photos of underage kids are still child pornography, no matter how you slice it. Whether or not the child did it voluntarily doesn’t matter because they can’t give consent.”

By “child,” the law means any person under age 18, which includes both pre- and post-pubescent children. There is quite an anatomical difference between a middle-schooler and a high-schooler.

Charging “children” the same as adults who distribute child pornography does not seem to add up. And which of the “children” involved should be charged?

Not only are adolescents’ bodies changing, but so are their brains. High-schoolers frequently do stupid things that the school administration (and everyone else on the planet) does not understand. Teenagers are not inherently stupid — their reasoning skills and maturity levels are in the works. With the technology available, it was only a matter of time before they discovered sexting.

Our culture is to blame for kids’ exposure to a lot of sexuality, especially in movies, music and magazines. Kids get the idea that to have a real romantic “relationship,” they should be sexually promiscuous. Cosmopolitian’s headlines never read “10 Ways to Get to Know Him;” they say “10 Ways to Make Him Wanna Rock Yo’ Body.” Teens start to come to the conclusion that being sexy means showing off everything they’ve got (hey, it worked for Britney Spears).

The state should not charge the person who sends pictures of himself or herself, or the recipient of the unsolicited photos if the recipient is also underage. However, anyone who forwards the photos without the consent of the original sender should be punished.

And the punishment should fit the crime. Take away cell phone and Internet privileges — privileges the kids care about if they are gone. Or sentence them to community service or make them give a presentation to their peers about the potential consequences of engaging in child pornography.

Parents and school administrators should dole out the punishments instead of taking up valuable time and money in the already overloaded court system. They are the ones who know the children and will influence their behavior.

Only if these measures do not significantly decrease sexting should states begin thinking about new laws to deal with these kiddie porn stars.

— Hartz is a Stilwell senior in creative writing.