'Sexting panic': Why the law struggles to keep up with reality

She was a young, impressionable woman and he was a married man; cutting-edgetechnology allowed their illicitrelationship to thrive.

Maggie McCutcheon and Frank Frisbienever got around tosexting. It was 1886 after all, and even the telegraphhad its limits.

But they drew headlines that still sound fresh today: "The Dangers of Wired Love."

It's an example Amy Hasinoffcites as she talks about her new book, Sexting Panic, and the reasons parents might want to take a deep breath and gather some perspective before talking to their teens about sexting.

"This is a moral panic that endlessly repeats itself and will continue to repeat itself once we have whatever the next communication technology is," she says.

"I don't knowif that's going to be holograms or whatever it is: I can't predict. But we will be panicking about girls using it for sex, there's no doubt."

Consensual vs criminal

While parents, pundits and police debate the dangers ofsexting, Hasinoff argues the surrounding anxiety distractsfrom crucial questions about teenage understanding of privacy and consent.

The University of Colorado communications professor says part of the problem lies with confusing the consensual sharingof intimateimageswith the non-consensual,malicious distribution of private pictures.

One is sexting, the other is a criminal offence. But we tend to treat them the same.

"By just saying sexting is wrong, it's illegal, we're missing out on the opportunity to tell them about the importanceof respecting privacy in digital media communication," Hasinoff says.

"Instead we need to have a real conversation with young people about 'What are the norms and expectations about privacy?'"

'Nothing to do with child pornography'

The legal ramificationsofsexting in Canada are different in the United States, where teens have been charged for sending consensual images to each other.

In 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada established a "personal use"exemption to child pornography laws that allows two youths to consensuallyrecord their own sexual activity as long as it stays between them.

It's when the material gets shared that law enforcement comes into play. That's what happened in a Victoria, B.C., case that emerged from a tangled teenage love triangle.

Call them Girl A, Girl Band the boyfriend. He found out Girl Bhad shared a naked picture of him and told Girl A he still had naked pictures of Girl B.Girl Aaccessed the intimate selfies, which she shared witha friend.

Girl A, a 16-year-old,was then charged with possession and distribution of child pornography.

It's not the love lifeany parent wants for their child, but like most situationsinvolving teens and sex, it's reality.

Girl A, who is now 18, got a six-month conditional discharge; her lawyer, Christopher Mackie,says she's no child pornographer.

"Our main issue with all of it from the outset is the tremendous impact that has not only on my client but any person in her circumstances charged with those kinds of offences," Mackiesays.

"The substantive acts have nothing to do with child pornography."

Girl Ais appealing the conviction on constitutional grounds; she argues the charge is disproportionate to the offence.

"The prosecution of me and other teenagedsextersas child pornographers isinconsistent with the principle of fundamental justice," Girl Awrote in a legalchallenge.

"But tough luck, government might say: if your actionsand those of otherteenagedsexterspossess the elements of these child-porn offences, thenyou andyour peers are guilty of those offences plain and simple."

Victim blaming

Cyberbullying laws introduced this year addressed illegalsexting by creatinga new offence of distributing an intimate image of a person without that person's consent.

But Mackiefears authorities will still "overcharge": using the threat ofchild pornography charges to convince teens to plead guilty to the lesser offence.

"It would seem to make much more sense before you get the heavy hammer of the state involved to try to resolve it with parties withthe assistance of the schools," he says.

"Because that's usually how it comes to the attention of the authorities via the schools."

Lara Karaian, an associate professor atCarletonUniversity in Ottawa,studies Canada's legal and societalapproach to sexting and teens. She says young female victimsshouldn't be made to feel ashamed because someone else shares their image.

"It's that tackthat 'If you had never created theimage in the first place then you wouldn't be going through all of this stuff,''she says.

"It's very victim blaming, and very abstinence based, and we all know abstinence based education doesn't work with teenagers."

'Networked privacy'

Karaian says her interviews with teens indicate a different understanding of privacy totheir parents one that's been referred to as "networked privacy."

"They will share passwords with each other. They have access to each others phones. They have access to each other's email accounts and their Facebook accounts," she says.

Where adults cling to the tools ofprivacy, Karaian saysteens"share them a lot more readily. That can be a strength. And that can also be a weakness."

It may be coldcomfort forparents confronting technologyaddicted teens. But if history has provedanything, it's that there will be something new to worry about tomorrow.