Wednesday, 23 November 2011

The problem with Sneaky hats and teens


The recent trend of posting ‘sneaky hat’ pictures on the Internet has started to cause a stir in the news. The trend involves taking a picture of a near naked subject with a hat covering their genital areas, then posting this photo to sites such as facebook and tumblr. The meme gained some popularity in mid-November of 2011 with a group of 15 year old boys in Australia creating a facebook page for the subject matter, which rapidly gained followers and accordingly content. A webpage ‘sneakyhatboys[dot]com was created at the same time.

The popularity of this meme with teenagers has created concerns in the wider community. Those involved with the facebook page have been quoted as stating that the page was started because they “just thought it was funny”, and attempted to justify their actions because “... mum saw it, she knew and just thought it was funny." (Lees, Philippa, Ninemsn, 22 November 2011).

If you combine this with the facebook’s description which stated “This page is restricted to people 17 and over so don’t complain about kids seeing it. I’ll also be vigilant at removing all porn. Let’s do this right! PS showing ballsak and soft d**k isn’t porn you f**king morons” (http://www.redditpics.com/i-introduce-you-to-the-sneaky-hat-i-think-its,377719/ 23 November 2011).

This points to a clear lack of understanding of the law in Australia (where these persons reside).

The Telecommunications Offences and Other Measures Act as amended in 2006 gives this definition of child pornography.
child pornography material means:
(a) material that depicts a person, or a representation of a person,
who is, or appears to be, under 18 years of age and who:
(i) is engaged in, or appears to be engaged in, a sexual pose
or sexual activity (whether or not in the presence of
other persons); or
(ii) is in the presence of a person who is engaged in, or
appears to be engaged in, a sexual pose or sexual
activity;
and does this in a way that reasonable persons would regard
as being, in all the circumstances, offensive; or
(b) material the dominant characteristic of which is the
depiction, for a sexual purpose, of:
(i) a sexual organ or the anal region of a person who is, or
appears to be, under 18 years of age; or
(ii) a representation of such a sexual organ or anal region;
or
(iii) the breasts, or a representation of the breasts, of a
female person who is, or appears to be, under 18 years
of age;
in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all
the circumstances, offensive; or
(c) material that describes a person who is, or is implied to be,
under 18 years of age and who:
(i) is engaged in, or is implied to be engaged in, a sexual
pose or sexual activity (whether or not in the presence
of other persons); or
(ii) is in the presence of a person who is engaged in, or is
implied to be engaged in, a sexual pose or sexual
activity;
and does this in a way that reasonable persons would regard
as being, in all the circumstances, offensive; or
(d) material that describes:
(i) a sexual organ or the anal region of a person who is, or
is implied to be, under 18 years of age; or
(ii) the breasts of a female person who is, or is implied to
be, under 18 years of age;
and does this in a way that reasonable persons would regard
as being, in all the circumstances, offensive.


The statement on the facebook page that material involving people 17 years old is already admitting that the subjects could the age criteria for images of a child and that depictions of genitalia are considered acceptable under his definition of acceptable content, i.e. things not porn. The law is accompanied by an explanatory memorandum that urges sanity in the enforcement of the law, and defines home pictures of your children as outside the intent of the legislation. http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r2131_ems_c79a0bd1-87a4-42e4-be65-485ba6850273/upload_pdf/66344.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

Facebook and ISPs are obligated to report the page to the federal police under the same act.

The bigger issue here beyond youth creating and distributing child pornography is the apparent lack of understanding of the consequence of their actions. These acts are illegal not as an act of moral censorship, that is legislated elsewhere. The purpose of these laws is to protect children from being or becoming victims. Creating a method that encourages public access to these images creates an opportunity for sexual harassment, verbal abuse, child grooming and physical abuse. These images will very likely be re-distributed on other forums for voyeristic behaviour such as isanyoneup[dot]com and most certainly wind up in the archives of pornography collectors, and paedophiles around the world.

Even the pictures that cover more than a bathing suit does, create the potential for harm when put on the internet in this context. Ms. Angie Varona became infamous after uploading some images of herself in a bikini to a private site in 2007 when she was 14 years old. The pictures spread across the internet and Ms. Varona was soon bullied at school and began to receive threats of rape and had her personal details spread worldwide. She had to change schools twice and is still now suffering from the effects of the harassment that came from putting those images on the Internet. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2060065/Angie-Varona-Most-Googled-teen-tears-risqu-photos-ruined-life.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

Let’s just hope that the people in power don’t get carried away with this issue and let the current laws that we have do their job. Also the media should take this as an opportunity to educate teenagers about the dangers of spreading images online.
The first picture ever uploaded to the internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Les_Horribles_Cernettes_in_1992.jpg) is still there, nearly twenty years later. Imagine having a picture of a pimply faced kid in nothing but a hat being mentioned at the interview when you are applying for that prestigious position twenty years from now.



No comments: