Misunderstandings and Intentional Misrepresentations: Challenging the Continued Framing of Consensual and Nonconsensual Intimate Image Distribution as Child Pornography

Many educational presentations continue to straightforwardly frame both consensual and nonconsensual intimate image distribution among youth as child pornography. This continues despite the availability of a purpose-built offence for nonconsensual intimate image distribution (NCIID) that was designed, in part, to avoid the use of child pornography offences in NCIID cases and the existence of a “private use exception” that limits the applicability of child pornography offences in cases of consensual “sexting” among youth. This sometimes inaccurate and, I argue, inappropriate focus on child pornography offences is especially common in presentations by police and public safety personnel. Through a discursive analysis of Canadian case law and a case study of educational approaches provided by the CyberScan unit, I find that the continued dominance of a child pornography framing is based on both genuine misconceptions of how these offences apply to intimate image distribution and intentional misrepresentations of the legal context.