Talk:Sexting

NPOV

This article smacks of NPOV. Where's the other side of the story? Just because people are excited about the prospect of nubile teenagers indiscriminately sending sexy photos of themselves and every gets all up in arms. What about the forty-year-old men who have been doing this since the dawn of cell-phone technology? Should we stand idly by why our youth are morally corrupted by unlimited technological access without any supervision or restraint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.139.229 (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The addition of MySpace in 'Popular Culture' is a violation of the notability requirements for web sources. Since MySpace is not a moderated source medium, it does not qualify. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.87.106 (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The above anonymous complaint that the article lacks a NPOV cites no specific examples from the article and appears itself to be little more than an opinionated rant. If the anonymous speaker wishes to improve the article by adding further information about the perceived dangers of sexting, nothing is stopping them. Suggest the neutrality dispute tag be removed. Brianwc (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I second that. It doesn't mention anything specific that it takes umbrage at, and reading carefully through the article, I see nothing that lacks NPOV. I'm removing the tag until a better case for it is made. The article seems to meet all normal wikipedia standards I can think of.mjlissner (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph under Background contains an erroneous statement: The survey was not done by WCAX as the first sentence states and as the the ref itself reveals. This sentence is then "balanced" in the second sentence by a statement of mere "belief," based on "original research" that, on its face, was not conducted using scientific sampling. Taken as a whole, this paragraph raises questions about the article's neutrality.

Legal cases

My particular concern is the lack of balance in the "Legal Cases" section. Almost everything there is from the POV that the legal status of "sexting" is cut and dried. At very least, readers should be alerted to the fact that, in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court said "speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production" is protected by the U.S. Constitution. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). Reporting an established rule of law and "giving legal advice" are two different things.

To report that court case in this article as you have tried to do twice would be to imply that it directly relates to sexting, which would be giving legal advice. I am not saying it does or does not apply; I'm saying that if we want to write about that case as if it applies to this topic, we need citations from reliable sources that say so.  Frank  |  talk  21:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

My proposed statement about the Ashcroft case implies that the case relates to "child pornography," which it does. The case says that some kinds of child pornography are "protected" speech under the Constitution. It is therefore misleading to imply that all child pornography, including sexting, can be ipso facto legally banned. This is especially so in the absence of any post-Ashcroft case to that effect. At very least, there is an open question, which the article in its present form does not, on balance, reflect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.105.45.123 (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to these two attempts to tie this case to Ashcroft, there are two major problems: 1) Use of the term therefore absolutely draws a conclusion that is not supported by any reference; even a direct link to the case would not be sufficient because it is WP:OR to say that a particular ruling applies to this topic; and 2) It implies that the Ashcroft decision encompasses sexting, which is highly questionable, given that the ruling may well predate the practice itself.

There is already an article on that court case (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition), and this article is not a place to bring in links to that one simply via original research. If the two are linked, we should be able to find citations from reliable sources that say so, in which case I would fully support inclusion of some text which says so (although still without the "therefore" construct). Without citations, it isn't appropriate.  Frank  |  talk  13:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Definition

This article makes no differentiation between explicit text messages & explicit photos/videos sent over phones. In recent media stories, the term sexting has been used to specifically mean only photos or videos, NOT text. Obviously the legal implications are different regarding text & images, so I think it would be helpful to make clear when it's talking about images or when it's just text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.6.113 (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

sexting is bad