The story of Rehtaeh Parsons was a compelling one that hit the media, particularly North American media, last year. She was a young woman from Nova Scotia who was raped in 2011 by four teenage boys while at a party when she was fifteen. A photograph of the assault was taken, and then actively passed around her high school. After the abuse she suffered at the hands of her peers, Rehtaeh Parsons committed suicide last year, but the trial of those involved in her assault and the circulation of the photograph is going on now.

Now if I were in Canada, I could be in a lot of trouble for writing that previous paragraph. The reason why is that there’s a Canadian law that bans the identification in the media of anyone involved in a child pornography case. The media has had to refer to Rehtaeh Parsons’ case essentially in code, writing things like “the victim” or the “the girl” and then describing the case against the young men who sexually assaulted her and then distributed the picture.

It has also forbid the media from mentioning her parents’ names, and the names of the two young men currently on trial for the actions they took against her. But the ban didn’t go into effect until recently, when certain points in the proceedings were reached against the young men. Well after many people around the country had heard Rehtaeh Parsons’ terrifying story.

The ban exists to protect those who are involved in child pornography cases — obviously an incredibly sensitive subject. But in this case, Rehtaeh Parsons’ name was already out there, and her parents think that the ban is actually in place to protect the authorities, who they claim did not do nearly enough to protect her from the beginning.

When the Parsons family first approached the police about a week after her assault and after the photograph was taken, they looked into it for almost a year before deciding to not press charges. They allegedly didn’t do anything to try to stop the spread of the photo. The Parsons family claims that at the time they were told that the photo didn’t even qualify as child pornography. Now their daughter’s name can’t be published anywhere for that exact reason.

The Parsons family also argues that Rehtaeh’s name has taken on a life of its own, and that she would have wanted to be able to speak up for herself and on behalf of future victims. Her parents emphasize the potential strength that Rehtaeh’s name, picture, and identity have as a rallying cry. Leah Parsons, Rehteah’s mother, stated that not being able to use her identity “diminishes the impact and the connection people have with the issue. When people hear her name and see her face, they realize it could be anybody’s daughter.”

The Parsons brought the gag rule before a judge who decided that while Rehtaeh’s name has reached a status much different than the usual child pornography victim, the law stands.

If the facts are indeed what the Parsons allege, I have to agree with them. The law does make sense — in the correct context. This is not the correct context. In an already highly publicized case where the victim’s name has inspired legislation and advocacy, the law seems unnecessary and cumbersome.

But most importantly it takes away Rehtaeh’s voice, which when you think about it, is the exact same thing that happened when her rapists assaulted her, spread that picture, and tortured her. They took away her identity. She deserves it back — even in memoriam — and this gag order law is doing nothing to help her or other rape victims who could find strength in her story.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [val.pearl via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Does the Gag Order on Rehtaeh Parsons’ Name Really Help? appeared first on Law Street.

Snapchat is a smartphone app designed to show timed pictures and videos that are not permanently saved to the recipient’s phone. The amount of time for which a recipient can view a photo is dictated by the sender, but is somewhere between 3-10 seconds. Usually the app is used for quick but relatively silly communication with friends–pet pictures, selfies, or just a life update in photo form.

Snapchat has received some criticism for possibly making “sexting,” the sharing of suggestive or explicit photos, easier. Because pictures automatically disappear after a few seconds, it may be easier for young people to send inappropriate photos without fear of later distribution. The problem is that it’s not that hard to save snapchats–there are apps to secretly save snapchats. Or for the more brazen, it is possible for a recipient to screenshot a snapchat, but the sender does receive a notification. You can easily take a picture of a snapchat on one phone with another phone or camera. For the most tech-savvy, there can be ways to access secret files on a smartphone. There have been dozens of cases of people posting their sexting partner’s compromising snapchats to the internet.

Now in all fairness, the trend has not been quite as widespread as feared. A recent poll found that only about 15% of Snapchat users admitted to using it for sexting purposes. The creators of Snapchat won’t reveal how many people have downloaded their app, but given its popularity, it’s safe to say that 15% of users is probably a fairly large group.

Now, if snapchat was just an app used by adults, this wouldn’t be too problematic. Moral and ethical issues aside, it is legal for adults to send nude photos back and forth, if they so wish. The problem that arises with Snapchat is that it may be being used by teenagers to send pictures back and forth, which can be considered distribution of child pornography.

There have been actual alleged cases of child pornography sent through Snapchat. In November, ten boys near Montreal aged 13-15 were investigated for peddling child pornography. They convinced their girlfriends to send them nude or partially nude photos, and then shared them among themselves. The girls did not know that the pictures were being distributed. The boys are due back in court on January 20th.

Teen-to-teen transmitted photos are one thing. But now an even creepier use of Snapchat has resulted in a new arrest. This week in Missouri, a mother has been charged with misdemeanor child endangerment after she sent snapchats of both herself and her 14-year-old daughter topless. She claims that she didn’t take the picture herself, but one of her other daughters did. That claim is contentious, because according to Prosecutor Tim Lohmar, it seems that the woman and her daughter are posing for the photo.

There have also been cases of adults sending explicit snapchats of themselves to minors, such as Joseph Johnson, a middle school teacher in Florida.

Snapchat might make sexting more guilt-free, but I can’t imagine it makes it that much so. It really is pretty easy to save a picture sent through the app. I think the bigger issue at play that warrants discussion is the use of social media to send inappropriate content. As children get smartphones, tablets, or computers at younger and younger ages, lines become fuzzier. The truth of the matter is that teens will always push the envelope, and science tells us that they’re quite not as good at making sound decisions as adults.

While snapchat is undoubtably fun, it can be dangerous, and teens sending pictures among themselves can have serious consequences. The Missouri woman being charged absolutely deserved it, but as for the teens, I think the issue is a little fuzzier. I know I’ve cautioned this before, but I truly think that as our technological abilities change, our laws need to keep pace.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Summer Skyes 11 via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dark Side of Snapchat appeared first on Law Street.