The Difference Between Sexting and Abuse

In 2010, William Whillock, a vice principal of a UK school, was given a three-year community order for coercing a pupil into texting him sexually explicit images. In a legal first, the "sexting" abuse victim was also awarded £25,000 ($42,000) in civil damages in September 2015 with an excess of £50,000 ($75,000) in total.

According to David McClenaghan, a lawyer at Bolt Burdon Kemp who represented the victim, the case is a huge step forward. "This case establishes that anybody who is manipulated into sending or receiving sexually-explicit text messages or images—we call it 'sexting'—and then goes on to suffer harm, could bring a claim for compensation," he said in a BBC report.

But in some cases, sexting remains an ambiguous issue under UK law. In July 2015, the National Crime Agency published a report detailing that at least one case a day was a child protection issue linked to sexting ("sending self-generated nude or nearly nude images and videos"). But, according to some, clearer distinctions must be made between criminal behaviour—as in the case above—and experimentation between young people.

Joseph Koterie-Monson, a specialist in sexual offences at Mary Monson Solicitors, said that cases like Whillock's are vital in sending out important messages about the consequences of abuse. However, he asserted the importance of making clear distinctions between sexting and incidences of abuse.

"Children and young people have a completely different approach to sharing private aspects of themselves, whether sexual or not, through technology,"he explained over the phone.

"This is a very unsavoury example of that phenomenon, but it's very important to take note here that this wasn't just a question of sexting; this was a question of a teacher who was in a position of trust, who was found guilty by criminal courts. It's a child abuse case, rather than a sexting case."

Koterie-Monson said that young people were increasingly expressing their sexualities digitally. He explained, however, that the law had not caught up with this phenomenon, and was having difficulty in distinguishing between experimentation and crime. Currently, strict police recording rules can risk branding teengers engaged in sexting as sexual offenders. For instance, at present teenagers aged between 16 to 18 found sexting can be given out-of-court disposal orders and put on the sex offender's register. This can seriously affect a teenager's future employment chances, as their records remain on police databases.

"It's very important to make a distinction between the type of not-completely-unhealthy experimentation between kids and young people, and abuse. […] The goal should not be to criminalize children but to protect them," explained Koterie-Monson.

A report published on Monday by the UK's all-party parliamentary group for children (APPGC) has also called for a change in police procedures so that actions such as sexting among young people could be dealt with differently. The report argues that a clear distinction should be made between trivial misbehaviour or "experimental" behaviour between two consenting young people of a similar age, and crime.

In a statement, the NSPCC, a non-profit dedicated to protecting children, said today's case was vital in sending out the message that there were "serious punishments that deter offenders from committing these crimes against young people."

Both Koterie-Monson and the NSPCC asserted that education was key in raising awareness of the potential consequences of sexting among teenagers.

While some advocate the need for more flexible laws regarding sexting among teens, the NSPCC also suggests that children be educated to not share explicit material.

"It's equally important to educate children about not sharing this kind of explicit material," the NSPCC in their statement. "It can leave them exposed to potential harm or embarrassment and they may well end up seriously regretting their actions."