Written by: Kimberly Brandt
Researched by: Nick Caleb
Edited by: Edward S. Bushnell and Stefanie Herrington

Teenagers often do things they later regret, but these days such mistakes can quickly reach a global audience. One incident that has graced the headlines involves two Wisconsin teenagers, Alex Phillips and his ex-girlfriend (referred to as “HLK”). In a breakup that turned ugly, Phillips posted pictures on his Myspace account that HLK had taken of herself and emailed to him several months prior to the incident. What’s illegal about that? According to the complaint, the first picture was full frontal nudity and the second of her genital area, to which Phillips added his own colorful caption. And since HLK is a mere 16 years old, the criminal issue pops up. When police contacted Phillips and requested that he take the pictures down, warning him that he could go to jail for refusing, Phillips reportedly replied, “f*** that, I am keeping them up.” Though Phillips did later take down the photographs, the “venting” teenager now faces charges for possession of child pornography, sexual exploitation of a child, and defamation.

The Charges

Under Wisconsin law, 17-year-old Phillips is considered an adult (as opposed to having to be 18 years old to be charged under federal law). Phillips was charged with possession of child pornography under Wisconsin Statute § 948.12(1m) and § 948.12(3)(b). According to these statutes, whoever possesses photographs of a child (under 18) engaged in sexually explicit conduct (the “lewd exhibition of intimate parts” qualifies as “sexually explicit conduct” under § 948.01(7)(e)) will be guilty of a Class I felony, provided several conditions are met. The person must know he possesses the sexually explicit material, he must be aware of “the character and content of the sexually explicit conduct” in the photographs, and he must know or reasonably should know that the child engaged in sexually explicit conduct is not yet 18 years old. As Phillips is the one who posted the pictures, it is evident he knew he possessed the photographs. Phillips also made it clear (through his colorful captions alone) that he knew what the photographs contained. Finally, there is no indication that he was unaware his ex-girlfriend was 16 years old.

Phillips was also charged with sexual exploitation of a child under § 948.05(1)(b) and § 948.05(2p)(b). According to these sections, anyone who displays in any way a child engaging in sexually explicit conduct, provided they knew the character and content of the material, is guilty of a Class F felony. Again, it’s clear that Phillips knew what was in the photographs, and by posting the pictures on his Myspace page, he displayed the material.

In addition, Phillips was charged with defamation under § 942.01(1). By posting the pictures and the caption on his Myspace account, it likely can also be proven that Phillips intended to defame his ex-girlfriend when he put the images up for the cyber world to see.

What does this mean for Phillips?

For Phillips, what started out as “venting” could lead to jail time. Under § 939.50(3)(f), Phlips faces up to twelve years and six months behind bars and a fine of up to $25,000 for the sexual exploitation charges alone.

However, even if Phillips is found guilty of violating these laws, he will most likely not serve any jail time. According to Parry Aftab, an Internet privacy and security lawyer, Phillips will probably plead out to a lesser offense. Law enforcement generally does not focus on an individual for a few photos such as these unless it involves trafficking. In all likelihood, Phillips’s “cavalier” attitude is what got him into trouble.

“Everyone wants to be Pamela Anderson“

What of HLK, Phillips’s badly burned ex? Could she be held accountable for taking the pictures and sending them? Not in this case; she’s still a minor under Wisconsin law. That hasn’t stopped other jurisdictions from going after child “self pornographers.” In Rhode Island, two teenage girls, ages 16 and 19, were charged with child pornography after posting sexually explicit images of themselves on their Myspace account. Unlike in Rhode Island, the Wisconsin statutes Phillips was charged under only apply to those age 17 and older. However, it is possible that, were HLK 17 years old, and she put up those pictures on her own Myspace page, she could have been charged with possession of child pornography and sexual exploitation of a child. Again, unless she refused to take the images down in a manner similar to Phillips, it is unlikely that charges would be filed.

In Florida, one protective mom discovered a sex video and “disturbing photos” on her middle-school daughter’s Myspace page. While authorities pursue charges against the minors, the “sex site” was removed and school offered a “family night” to teach parents how to prevent their children from engaging in exploitation.

A Florida Supreme Court decision allows 16-year-olds to legally engage in sex with each other. However, the state’s Court of Appeals ruled that documenting such acts is criminal because there is a danger that the material will become public. In its opinion, the court says the statute was designed to protect minors “from their own lack of judgment.”

“Looking for their 15 megabytes of fame“

The Phillips case is indicative of a larger crackdown on child pornography. Despite some characterizations of these prosecutions as “overzealous,” it seems as though police, prosecutors, and judges are trying to maintain the balance between protecting children and punishing child pornographers. As social sites such as Myspace and Facebook continue to work with government officials to rid their web pages of child pornography, new sites and methods of passing such images and videos continue to pop up. In January, police encountered the problem of stopping a pornographic video of two high school girls from spreading via cell phone. While the police took measures to make sure the video was deleted from the cell phones, this case is just one of many in what Aftab terms an “epidemic.” As more and more teens seek exposure on the internet, government officials are left trying to block off kids’ ways of circumventing safety measures.

While there is no law against stupidity, when it comes to protecting teenagers from child pornography, the first line of defense is always parents. Proper internet safety can not only save teens from embarrassment, it can also save them from jail time. What the outcome of the charges against Alex Phillips will be is not yet certain, but at least one Wisconsin teen has learned there are some types of “venting” the law doesn’t allow.