Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter



Oct 10, 2012

The Sext Files: Christian lobby wants tougher laws to protect children

Sexting is part of a damaging wave of sexualisation affecting young children -- and an internet filter and tougher codes of conduct would help address the problem, the Australian Christian Lobby says. Swinburne University students Karlee Ventre and Darren Doukas look at the ACL's concerns.

User login status :


Many young people think sexting is acceptable because they are surrounded by pornography every day, says the Australian Christian Lobby.

The Victorian director of the ACL, Daniel Flynn, told Crikey: “Young people are in an environment where they are bombarded with pornography on television, outdoor advertising and in movies. So the sending of a sexualised image doesn’t seem like an inappropriate thing to do. What makes a difference now, is that these images can be circulated at the speed of light, and the breadth of distribution is what makes them most damaging.”

Crikey and journalism students from Swinburne University have teamed up to look through the 60 submissions to the Victorian Law Reform Committee’s current inquiry into sexting (the practice of taking explicit images and sending them electronically, with or without consent).

In its submission to the inquiry, the ACL said increasing sexualisation occurred despite clear guidelines for television, film, radio and print content.

“Even our music clips are very pornographic. Apathy is also a factor. Things that we would certainly consider as pornography are in sight when young kids are lining up to get a slurpee at 7-Eleven. Our own apathy, is that we are doing nothing about it. We need to send a message to our young people that they don’t have to be sexualised to be accepted, to be liked or approved in their peer group,” Flynn said.

One young woman, Grace Condidorio, 18,of Cobram in northern Victoria, agrees. She told Crikey she had witnessed a few of her friends being embarrassed by private messages having been released on Facebook. “Everyone wants to be like what they see on TV,” Condidorio said. “Sexting makes kids feel like they are sexy and in control just like people they see in movies.”

The ACL submission refers to an incident in Cincinnati, Ohio, where a young girl, Jessica Logan, committed suicide after a naked photo of her was circulated at her high school. “It’s a tragic case,” Flynn said. “There was a lot of bullying associated with that, a lot of name calling … she used to hide in the toilets.”

He said a similar case had happened in South Australia. “There was a boy who wanted to have a sexual relationship with a girl when she wanted to break up. He used an image of her, as manipulation to achieve his end.”

Flynn said an internet filter would be a step in the right direction, due to the increasing availability of pornography. “The ACL has repeatedly requested the federal government to put a mandatory internet filter on to block refused classification material. It was a promise going into this last election but that promise hasn’t been implemented.”

The lobby group also recommended that schools implement a code of conduct to educate young people on the dangers of sexting.

“There should be surveillance of phones at school to the extent that they’re brought to the attention of the school authorities and enforcement in schools leading to reporting to the police as appropriate. Headmasters have to be involved, there should be a lot of education, we should be engaging the kids in classrooms. There have not been a lot of cases but I’m sure the community wants to protect children,” Mr Flynn said.

Get a free trial to post comments
More from Crikey


We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Leave a comment

17 thoughts on “The Sext Files: Christian lobby wants tougher laws to protect children

  1. Matt Hardin

    @Sally, I am 42 with a primary school aged child. He has a regulated bed time. My wife and I monitor what he views (Youtube and iPads make this tough sometimes) and try to ensure that it is only G rated or PG is we know what the content is.

    As for too busy, we both work full time and still manage to express our opinion to broadcasters and sponsorss when we feel they have crossed the line. It takes about as much time as writing a Crikey comment! Organising a boycott is not juvenile, it is using your power as a consumer to tell companies that enough is enough.

    Legislation is in place. There are bodies that exist for you to complain to. There is a rating ststem that allows you to make an educated guess as to the offensiveness of a broadcast item’s content. There are time slots where these shows can be broadcast. I am not sure what else you want. If you are not happy with the material available on TV then downloading less offensive material is always an option. (I would not want to watch the show you referred to, either)

    Censoring the internet means that some group can tell me what information I can access in my own home at my own request. It means that the ACL or some other lobby group can decide what it is I view in the privacy of my own study. As acknowledged above by Adam and James, it would not fix the overall problem of a creeping sexualisation. It would not fix 7-11s. It would not fix sexting. It would not change music videos. It would not stop Paris Hilton, Brittany Spears et al mistaking promiscuity for power. It would not alter pornography on television, outdoor advertising and in movies. It would not change what you saw on Channel 7. Why is it the proposed solution?

Leave a comment