Student cyberbullying inside the digital schoolhouse gate: Toward a standard for determining where a “School” is

Primack, Alvin J.; Johnson, Kevin A.

doi:10.1080/21689725.2016.1278177

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding digital speech, when the letter and intent of communication laws clash, it is often because they were not written with the “unique characteristics of cyberspace” in mind (Drucker and Gumpert, 1995). Some First Amendment scholars have demonstrated that rhetorical translation is one strategy legal professionals may consider when accounting for the unique features of digital communication (Fishman, 2004; Primack and Johnson, 2017). Translation, a component of many intralingual or interlingual interpretive endeavors (Jakobson, 2004), is a rhetorically inventive process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Youth sexting and the First Amendment: Rhetoric and child pornography doctrine in the age of translation

Primack

2017

New Media & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sexting has become a common mode of communicative sexual expression in the United States. Youths who sext with their peers are sometimes charged for the crime of producing and distributing child pornography. Such charges are inconsistent with the intent of American child pornography law, which is to protect children from abuse and exploitation. Understanding sext messages as a type of media content, this essay offers rhetorical translation as one strategy for identifying resources in Supreme Court doctrine to help distinguish between youth sexts and child pornography. Through rhetorical translation, this manuscript finds resources in four opinions concerning child pornography and the First Amendment for distinguishing sexting from child pornography. These distinctions pertain to how the two types of media are produced and distributed as demonstrated in a three-part interpretive model: motive and consent, privacy and consent, and market.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%