³ Thomas, Liz, “Quarter of under-13s signed up to social networking sites despite age restrictions,” published on March 27, 2010 in Mail Online. Available @ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1260993/Quarter-13s-signed-social-networking-sites.html. Accessed on 19.10.11Google Scholar

⁴ Id.Google Scholar

⁵ Halder, Debarati, &Jaishankar Karuppannan “Cyber Gender Harassment and Secondary Victimization: A Comparative Analysis of the United States, the UK, and India,” Victims & Offenders, 6:4, 386–398. (2011):Google Scholar

⁶ Sexting is self photographing nude body or body parts and sending to others, as well texting obscene words to known persons (in most cases) using mobile phone. K. Jaishankar “Sexting: A new form of victimless crime.” International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3(1), January 2009, 21-25. (2009).Google Scholar

⁷ NewYork vs. Ferber (458 U. S. 747 (1982)Google Scholar

⁸ See Daily Mail Reporter, Boy of 14 accused of child pornography after convincing girl his age to send him sex text. Published in Mail Online, on 6th March 2011. Available @ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363445/Sexting-case-asks-14-year-old-child-pornogragher.html Google Scholar

⁹ See pgs 24, 27, 32, 42, 47, 48 in Debarati Halder and Jaishankar Karuppannan “Cyber crime and the Victimization of Women: Laws, Rights, and Regulations”. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global. ISBN: 978-1-60960-830-9 (2011); also see Mary Anne Franks, “Unwilling Avatars: Idealism and Discrimination in Cyberspace.” Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, Vol. 20, p. 224, (2011). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1374533; Ann Bartow, «Pornography, Coercion, and Copyright Law 2.0» Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 10.4: 101-142. (2008). Available @ http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=ann_bartow Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Facebook rules regarding safety, available @ https://www.facebook.com/terms.php Google Scholar

¹¹ See Barnes v. Yahoo!, available @ http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/05/07/05-36189.pdf Google Scholar

¹² See Bartow, Ann, “Pornography, Coercion, and Copyright Law 2.0” Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 10.4: 101–142. (2008). Available @ http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=ann_bartow Google Scholar

¹³ George, Carlisle E. and Scerri, Jackie, Web 2.0 and User-Generated Content: Legal Challenges in the New Frontier. Journal of Information, Law and Technology, Vol. 2, 2007. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1290715 Google Scholar

¹⁴ See the Facebook terms on Safety @ https://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf Also see Justin, You Received a “Sext,” Now What? Advice for Teens, February 22, 2011, http://cyberbullying.us/blog/you-received-a-sext-now-what-advice-for-teens.html Google Scholar

¹⁵ See https://www.facebook.com/safety/tools/ Google Scholar

¹⁶ See in general Digital Media Law Project, Immunity for online publishers under the Communication Decency Act. Available @ http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/immunity-online-publishers-under-communications-decency-act Google Scholar

¹⁷ Section 512 to the Copyright Act was added by Title II of The Digital Millennium Copy right Act, 1998 to create four limitations on liability for copyright infringement by online service providers on four categories of conduct by a service provider. For more, see http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Id @ 10Google Scholar

¹⁹ See pg 491 in Leary, Mary, “Sexting or Self-Produced Child Pornography? The Dialogue Continues – Structured Prosecutorial Discretion within a Multidisciplinary Response.” Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, Vol. 17, No. 3, Spring 2010; CUA Columbus School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010-31. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1657007 Google Scholar

²⁰ Halder, Debarati, &Jaishankar Karuppannan. “Sexting among Teens: An analysis on the Questions of Legalities and Illegalities.” Unpublished paper in the personal file.Google Scholar

²¹ Miller vs. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973)Google Scholar

²² Mortez Haynes, Antonio. “The Age of Consent: When is Sexting No Longer Speech Incident to Criminal Activity” Cornell Law Review, Vol. 97, No. 2, 2012. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1744648 Google Scholar

²³ Julia Halloran, McLaughlin. “Crime and Punishment: Teen Sexting in Context”, (2010). Available at: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=julia_mclaughlin Google Scholar

²⁴ Id @ 18Google Scholar

²⁵ Id.Google Scholar

²⁶ Id.Google Scholar

²⁷ Available @ http://www.law.comell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002256—-000-.html Google Scholar

²⁸ Tom SR Hester. “N. J. law makes juvenile ‘sexting’ an educational issue, not a crime”. NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM on 27th September, 2011. http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/nj-law-makes-juvenile-sexting-an-educational-issue-not-a-crime Google Scholar

²⁹ See SENATE, No.2700,State of New Jersey 214th Legislature, introduced February 17, 2011. Available @ http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/S3000/2700_Il.HTM Google Scholar

³⁰ By the term “innocence” we aim to denote the absence of prior knowledge of future harm of the sender.Google Scholar

³¹ See Id @ 6Google Scholar

³² Id @18Google Scholar

³³ See Id @ 21Google Scholar

³⁴ See TIMES INTERNET NETWORK Confusion prevails over tackling cyber crime, May 22, 2001 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Confusion-prevails-over-tackling-cyber-crime/articleshow/409953300.cms Google Scholar

³⁵ This provision stated that “Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.” The adjacent part pf the provision prescribed punishment which would be imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and also with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees. However, the Information Technology Act was subsequently amended and the amended version came into life in the later part of 2009. The amended version deals with child pornography under section 67B. The Act can be found in http://www.cyberpolicebangalore.nic.in/pdf/it_amendment_act2008.pdf Google Scholar

³⁶ This was suggested by one anonymous individual who made a comment to the lead author's blog “Be aware of online mischief mongers”, can be found @ http://debaraticy-berspace.blogspot.com/2011/10/be-aware-of-online-mischief-mongers.html#comments.Google Scholar

³⁷ We have discussed about the issue of sex education in schools in India in the later part of this paper.Google Scholar

³⁸ From the personal experiences as Directors of the Centre for Cyber victim Counseling (www.cybervictims.org), we have seen that this tendency is growing among the Indian teens.Google Scholar

³⁹ Express News Service “Sex scandal: Boy who shot MMS clip held”. Express India. December 19,2004. Available @ http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=39787 Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Basharat Peer, Student accused in porn website case secures Bail. Published on April 30,2001 in http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/apr/30porn.htm Google Scholar

⁴¹ Presently Juvenile court is substituted by Juvenile Justice Board after coming into effect of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000. for more details see http://delhicourts.nic.in/JUVENILE_JUSTICE_BOARD.htm Google Scholar

⁴² These comments were published in the news report that covered the hearing. See Id @ 37Google Scholar

⁴³ Section 292 (2), Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and, in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and also with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Sections 294 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribe punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See Avinash Bajaj v. State, available @ http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/309722/ Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See DPS MMS scandal: SC stays proceedings against eBay, its chief, Press Trust Of India / New Delhi August 26, 2008, http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/dps-mms-scandal-sc-stays-proceedings-against-ebay-its-chief/332573/ Google Scholar

⁴⁷ The Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, which was subsequently amended in 2006, divided the category of children that could fall under two heads; namely, “children in conflict with law”, which is dealt by chapter II of the Act, and “children in need of care and protection”, which is dealt by Chapter III of the Act. Chapter II does not clarify separately as how the juvenile offender charged with offences under Indian Information Technology Act, can be dealt with. The chapter however highlights the treatment of juvenile victims who may have been abused by adults by way of engaging the child for begging, employing the child for hazardous work, withholding the child's earnings etc, or by negligence, abundance, or by giving intoxicating objects or psychotropic substances etc, and the punishment of the adults who do these.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), The Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (No. 4 Of 2006), The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (No. 35 of 2009) are the glaring examples.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ This point will be elaborated later.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Right to life has been guaranteed vide Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which states “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”Google Scholar

⁵¹ Kharak Singh vs. State of UP ((1964) 1 SCR 332)Google Scholar

⁵² See Vinod Kaushik & another vs. Madhvika Joshi & Others, Appeal no. 2 of 2010, CDJ,2011,Cyber At001, Retrieved from http://catindia.gov.in/pdfFiles/Appeal_No_2.pdf on 23.10.2011. Even though this present case does not primarily emphasize on right to privacy in the digital space, it has highlighted the privacy factor through hacking and related issues.Google Scholar

⁵³ Which may include masturbation, viewing adult porn sites, adult movies, reading adult sex stories etc.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See Halder & Jaishankar 2011, pg 5 & 6.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See additional terms of service for Orkut, available @ http://www.orkut.co.in/html/en-US/additionalterms.orkut.html, Registration and account security for Facebook @ http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Special correspondent, “Karnataka bans mobiles for those under 16s”, September, 12, 2007. Available @ http://www.hindu.com/2007/09/12/stories/2007091262261200.htm Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Agencies, “Mobile phones banned in schools in Maha”, Feb 21, 2009 Available @ http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Mobile-phones-banned-in-schools-in-Maha/426462/ Google Scholar

⁵⁸ PTI, “Gujarat government bans mobile phones in schools, colleges”. August, 2, 2010 Available @ http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-08-02/india/28287399_1_mobile-phones-colleges-gujarat-govemment Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See CBSE circular of 2009 “Restriction in the use of Mobile Phones in Schools.” Available @ http://cbse.nic.in/welcome.htm Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See Id @ 17Google Scholar

⁶¹ See S. 67B of the Information Technology Act,2000(amended in 2008), available in http://www.cyberpolicebangalore.nic.in/pdf/it_amendment_act2008.pdf Google Scholar

⁶² See S.11(ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.Google Scholar

⁶³ See S.11(iii), Id.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See S.11(v) Id.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ We had received this message on my Facebook wall in mid October, 2011 which was hugely shared by others.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Id @ 21Google Scholar

⁶⁷ IdGoogle Scholar

⁶⁸ Bruce J Winick “Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Victims of Crime. Victim Participation In Justice: A Therapeutic Jurisprudence Perspective”, (2008), Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1102350 Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Wexler, David. B. (2003), Judging in a Therapeutic Key, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Courts, edited by Winick, Bruce J. and Wexler, David B., (Carolina Academic Press, Durham North Carolina, 2003) p 7.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Id @ 21Google Scholar

⁷¹ Day, Terri R. “The New Digitial Dating Behavior - Sexting: Teens’ Explicit Love Letters: Criminal Justice or Civil Liability”, (2010). Available @ http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=terri_day Google Scholar

⁷² Karuppannan, Jaishankar & Kannan, C. “Abuse of Children during discipline practices: A Victimological Analysis.” Indian Journal of Human Rights and Justice. Volume 1, Issue 2, 2006. Pages 1–15.Google Scholar

⁷³ Mungan, Murat C. “Don't Say You're Sorry Unless You Mean it”. FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 546. (2011), Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1917073 Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Id @ 69Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Celizic, Mike. “Her teen committed suicide over ‘sexting’”, Published in ToDay Parenting on 3rd June. Available @ http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/29546030/ns/today-parenting/t/her-teen-committed-suicide-over-sexting/#.TrkzSfTDXjM Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Id @ 66Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Reuters, “Do we need sex education in schools?” 30th April 2009, Available @ http://blogs.reuters.com/india/2009/04/30/do-we-need-sex-education-in-schools Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Chaturvedi, Darshan “Schools, students keen on studying sex education”. July 5, 2010 Published in http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-07-05/vadodara/28298671_1_school-teachers-education-administrators Google Scholar