Page 1 of 8
EXAM NUMBER: #### BBE
BLUEBOOK EXERCISE
(Leave blank or add more text boxes to the explanations, as you require)
Directions: Double click in the Exam Number field above, replace #### with your exam
number, close on the header and save the document, naming it your exam number
followed by the letters BBE (for BlueBook Exercise). Your document should be named
something like: “5213 BBE.doc.” Supply the rules and explanations below and complete
the Preference Sheet. When you are done, attach the document to an email, and send it to
BlueBook@bc.edu. The email’s subject line should be your exam number plus BBE (i.e.,
5213 BBE). Good luck.
Author’s Original:
Numerous books and periodicals have documented this trend. See, e.g., Powell,
Andrew, Sex, Power, and Consent: Youth Culture and the Unwritten Rules of the
Internet (1st ed. Cambridge University Press 2014) [hereinafter Powell, Sex, Power, and
Consent]; Robby Soave, Teen Boy Will Be Charged as Adult for Possessing Naked Pics
of a Minor: Himself, FAYETTEVILLE OBSERVER ONLINE, June 2, 2014, at 6.
Edited Version:
Numerous books and periodicals have documented this trend. See, e.g., ANDREW
POWELL, SEX, POWER, AND CONSENT: YOUTH CULTURE AND THE UNWRITTEN RULES OF
THE INTERNET 174 (2014); Robby Soave, Teen Boy Will Be Charged as Adult for
Possessing Naked Pics of a Minor: Himself, FAYETTEVILLE OBSERVER ONLINE (N.C.)
(June 2, 2014, 4:31 PM), http://fayette_observer.com/blog/2015/09/02/teen-boy-will-becharged-as-adult [http://web.archive.org/web2015/0208081]
Explanation:
Rules
Explanation
Author’s Original:
2
Black’s Law Dictionary provides a more complete definition: “Sexting /ˈsɛkstɪŋ/
(idiomatic, colloquial): n. the act of sending sexually explicit text messages and/or
photographs between cell phones; v. gerund or present participle of sext (used with or
without object); etymology: blend of sex + texting; usage: the verb to sext is most often
used in the form sexting (“In the end, the reason that Anthony Weiner is unlikely to
survive the sexting scandal comes down to what I call the ick factor.” Howard Kurtz,
Wounded Weiner, Daily Beast (June 8, 2011)); coordinate terms: textual intercourse,
sextortion.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1446 (10th ed. 2014). See also Sexting: What
Parents Need to Know, by Randall Smith-Peterson in the March 8, 2015, issue of Parents
Magazine starting on page 63.
Edited Version:
2
Black’s Law Dictionary provides a more complete definition:
Sexting /ˈsɛkstɪŋ/ (idiomatic, colloquial): n. the act of sending sexually
explicit text messages and/or photographs between cell phones; v. gerund
or present participle of sext (used with or without object); etymology: blend
of sex + texting; usage: the verb to sext is most often used in the form
sexting . . . ; coordinate terms: textual intercourse, sextortion.
Page 2 of 8
EXAM NUMBER: #### BBE
Sexting, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014); see also Randall Smith-Peterson,
Sexting: What Parents Need to Know, PARENTS MAG., Mar. 8, 2015, at 63 (defining
sexting as the sending or receiving of sexually explicit or sexually suggestive images,
messages, or video via a cellphone or the Internet).
Explanation:
Rules
Explanation
Author’s Original:
3
Id. at 64.
Edited Version:
3
Smith-Peterson, supra note 2, at 64.
Explanation:
Rules
Explanation
Author’s Original:
4
Article 26, North Carolina General Statues Annotated sec. 14-190.16 (for the
definition of first degree sexual exploitation of a minor); North Carolina Statutes sec. 14190.17 (for the definition of second degree sexual exploitation of a minor); North Carolina
Statutes sec. 14-190.17A (for the definition of third degree sexual exploitation of a minor)
(2008); Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272, §§ 29B (a)–(c) (LexisNexis 2010) (this chapter provides
the penalties for production, possession, and dissemination of child pornography; 18
U.S.C. § 2252 et seq. (2012) (chapters 71 and 110 of title 18, primarily §§ 2252–60(b),
describe the federal crimes of possession, receipt, and trafficking of child pornography).
Edited Version:
4
18 U.S.C. §§ 2252–2260(b) (2012 & Supp. 2015) (describing the federal crimes of
possession, receipt, and trafficking of child pornography); MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 272,
§ 29B(a)–(c) (2010) (providing the penalties for production, possession, and
dissemination of child pornography); N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-190.16 (2008) (defining first
degree sexual exploitation of a minor); id. § 14-190.17 (defining second degree sexual
exploitation of a minor); id. § 14-190.17A (defining third degree sexual exploitation of a
minor).
Explanation:
Rules
Explanation
Author’s Original:
5
See. e.g., State of Utah in the interest of Z.C., a minor, 165 P.3d 1206, 1209 (Utah
Supreme Ct. 2008) (holding that a child pornography conviction of a teen for sexting
would result in an “absurd outcome”); A.H. v. Fla., 949 So. 2d 234, 239 (2007)
(reversing the lower court conviction of a teen prosecuted under Florida’s child
Page 3 of 8
EXAM NUMBER: #### BBE
pornography laws for sexting her boyfriend); Mary Jo Miller v. Philadelphia County
District Atty.’s Off., 598 F.3d 139, 155 (2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 631 (2009) (for a
TRO preventing DA from initiating criminal charges in a teen sexting incident); but see
State v. Canal, 773 N.W.2d 528, 533 (2009) (affirming the judgment below because the
evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for knowingly disseminating obscene
material to a minor).
Edited Version:
5
See, e.g., Miller v. Phila. Dist. Attorney’s Office, 598 F.3d 139, 155 (3d Cir. 2009)
(granting TRO preventing DA from initiating criminal charges in a teen sexting
incident); A.H. v. State of Florida, 949 So. 2d 234, 239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)
(reversing the lower court conviction of a teen prosecuted under Florida’s child
pornography laws for sexting her boyfriend); State of Utah ex rel. Z.C., 165 P.3d 1206,
1209 (Utah 2008) (holding that a child pornography conviction of a teen for sexting
would result in an “absurd outcome”). But see State v. Canal, 773 N.W.2d 528, 533
(Iowa 2009) (affirming the judgment below because the evidence was sufficient to
support a conviction for knowingly disseminating obscene material to a minor).
Explanation:
Rules
Explanation
Author’s Original:
6
See Robert D. Richards and Clay Calvert, When Sex And Cell Phones Collide: Inside
The Prosecution Of A Teen Sexting Case, 31 HASTINGS COMMUNICATION AND E’MENT. L.J.
166, 171 (2009). Professors Richards and Calvert recount the story of Phillip Alpert, a teen
convicted as a child pornographer for sending an uninhibited photo of himself to his
girlfriend. Id. at 172–174. As a registered sex offender, he received a “Sexual
Offender/Predator Notice” from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement—a flyer that
contained, among other things, his name, address, criminal conviction, and a color
photograph. See Florida Department of Law Enforcement—Sexual Offender/Predator
Flyer, http://Florida_Department_of_Law_Enforcement.htm#2008/public_record
?media/File:Alpert_sex_offender_flyer.jpg_%20j;lkasdj;klj%20_a;lkj;liujkl;jf;alkjd;lk%
20_kj;;;;ja;lkhr;liui;klj;kjl;lkj;lkjd.gov (last visited May 1, 2016). The information was
available online for the public, and Alpert had to disseminate the flyer in his
neighborhood. Id. at 177. As a result of the conviction, he had to drop out of community
college, he could not find a job, and was even unable to visit his father who lived in
proximity to an elementary school. Id.
Edited Version:
6
See Robert D. Richards & Clay Calvert, When Sex and Cell Phones Collide: Inside
the Prosecution of a Teen Sexting Case, 31 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT. L.J. 166, 171 (2009).
Professors Richards and Calvert recount the story of Phillip Alpert, a teen convicted as a
child pornographer for sending an uninhibited photo of himself to his girlfriend. Id. at
172–74. As a registered sex offender, he received a “Sexual Offender/Predator Notice”
from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement—a flyer that contained, among other
things, his name, address, criminal conviction, and a color photograph. See Florida
Department of Law Enforcement—Sexual Offender/Predator Flyer, http://Florida_
Department_of_Law_Enforcement.htm#2008 (select “Public Records,” follow “Sex
Offender Registry” hyperlink, choose “alphabetical,” search for “Alpert”) (last visited
May 1, 2016). The information was available online for the public, and Alpert had to
Page 4 of 8
EXAM NUMBER: #### BBE
disseminate the flyer in his neighborhood. Richards & Calvert, supra at 177. As a result of
the conviction, he had to drop out of community college, he could not find a job, and was
even unable to visit his father who lived in proximity to an elementary school. Id.
Explanation:
Rules
Explanation
Author’s Original:
7
Although Tier I sex offenders are convicted of the least serious (usually
misdemeanor) offenses in the federal statutory scheme, they must nonetheless register
for 15 years, renewing their registration every one hundred and twenty days. Karen J.
Terry, John S. Furlong, and Marcus Dickerson, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND
COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION, found in A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE TO THE ADAM WALSH
ACT OF 2006 89, 111 (Civic Resource Institute: 2007) (collecting essays relevant to the
defense of minors accused of sex offenses).
Edited Version:
7
Although Tier I sex offenders are convicted of the least serious (usually
misdemeanor) offenses in the federal statutory scheme, they must nonetheless register
for fifteen years, renewing their registration every 120 days. Karen J. Terry et al., Sex
Offender Registration and Community Notification, in A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE TO THE
ADAM WALSH ACT OF 2006, at 89, 111 (Lori McPherson ed., 2007) (collecting essays
relevant to the defense of minors accused of sex offenses).
Explanation:
Rules
Explanation
Author’s Original:
8
There are constitutional concerns as well. Sexts are usually captured from a teen’s
phone, although not necessarily pursuant to a warrant. See, e.g., Philadelphia District
Atty.’s Off., supra note 5, at 150. The Fourth Amendment, however, protects against
unreasonable searches of this nature, and predicates invasive inspections of personal
effects upon probable cause. United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights, Sept. 25, 1789,
at amendment 4. Regardless of whether the images are seized lawfully, the legal system
has often demonstrated an inability to make nuanced distinctions, most notably in the
area of regulating sexual behavior. See generally Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 122
S. Ct. 1389, 1406 (2002) (striking down a federal law criminalizing virtual child
pornography as distinguished from sexually explicit material that uses actual minors in
its production). But see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 122 S. Ct. at 1411 (believing
the regulation constitutional since “Computer-generated images virtually
indistinguishable from real children in sexually explicit conduct”).
Edited Version:
8
There are constitutional concerns as well. Sexts are usually captured from a teen’s
phone, although not necessarily pursuant to a warrant. See, e.g., Miller, 598 F.3d at 150.
The Fourth Amendment, however, protects against unreasonable searches of this nature,
and predicates invasive inspections of personal effects upon probable cause. U.S. CONST.
Page 5 of 8
EXAM NUMBER: #### BBE
amend. IV. Regardless of whether the images are seized lawfully, the legal system has
often demonstrated an inability to make nuanced distinctions, most notably in the area of
regulating sexual behavior. See generally Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S.
234, 258 (2002) (striking down a federal law criminalizing virtual child pornography as
distinguished from sexually explicit material that uses actual minors in its production).
But see id. at 268 (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting) (believing the regulation constitutional
since “[c]omputer-generated images [are] virtually indistinguishable from real children
in sexually explicit conduct”).
Explanation:
Rules
Explanation
Author’s Original:
9
See generally Amy Adele Hasinoff, Sexting as Media Production: Rethinking Social
Media, Sexuality, and the Law, in A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE TO THE ADAM WALSH ACT
OF 2006, at 24, 32 (Lori McPherson ed., 2004) (advocating legislative action to make the
distinction between sexting and child pornography perspicuous); but cf. Ashcroft, 535
U.S. at 268 (criticizing the majority’s willingness to distinguish between two forms of
child pornography); compare People v. Shields, 199 Cal. App. 4th 323, 334 (2011), with
A.H. v. State of Florida, 949 So. 2d 234, 239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007).
Edited Version:
9
Compare People v. Shields, 199 Cal. App. 4th 323, 334 (2011) (affirming child
pornography conviction of a school bus driver who distributed graphic pictures of an
autistic minor whom he transported daily), with A.H., 949 So. 2d at 239 (reversing the
lower court conviction of a teen, prosecuted under Florida’s child pornography laws, for
sexting her boyfriend). But cf. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. at 268 (Rehnquist, C.J.,
dissenting) (criticizing the majority’s willingness to distinguish between two forms of
child pornography). See generally Amy Adele Hasinoff, Sexting as Media Production:
Rethinking Social Media, Sexuality, and the Law, in A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE, supra
note 7, at 24, 32 (advocating legislative action to make the distinction between sexting
and child pornography perspicuous).
Explanation:
Rules
Explanation
Author’s Original:
10
See Sarah Thompson, Comment, Sexting Prosecutions: Minors as a Protected
Class from Child Pornography Charges, 2014 U. MICH. J.L. REFORM 117, 126 (2014);
Susan Hanely Duncan, A Legal Response Is Necessary for Self-Produced Child
Pornography: A Legislator’s Checklist for Drafting the Bill, 89 OR. L. REV. 645, 659
(2010); POWELL, supra note 1, at 174; State of Utah ex rel. Z.C., 165 P.3d at 1209.
Edited Version:
0
See Z.C., 165 P.3d at 1209; POWELL, supra note 1, at 174; Susan Hanely Duncan, A
Legal Response Is Necessary for Self-Produced Child Pornography: A Legislator’s
Checklist for Drafting the Bill, 89 OR. L. REV. 645, 659 (2010); Sarah Thompson,
Page 6 of 8
EXAM NUMBER: #### BBE
Comment, Sexting Prosecutions: Minors as a Protected Class from Child Pornography
Charges, 2014 U. MICH. J.L. REFORM 117, 126.
Explanation:
Rules
Explanation
Author’s Original:
1
See supra note 5 and accompanying text.
Edited Version:
1
See supra note 5 and accompanying text.
Explanation: You’re not delusional: these are the same; there’s no explanation necessary.
Author’s Original:
2
Id. That is not to say there is no place for punishment in the response, but it should
be driven by schools and parents, not law enforcement. Thompson, supra note 10, at 124
(“Once schools have set clear expectations regarding sexting, they should implement
fair and reasonable punishment schemes.”) (emphasis in the original).
Edited Version:
2
See supra note 5 and accompanying text. That is not to say there is no place for
punishment in the response, but it should be driven by schools and parents, not law
enforcement. Thompson, supra note 10, at 124 (“Once schools have set clear
expectations regarding sexting, they should implement fair and reasonable punishment
schemes.”).
Explanation:
Rules
Explanation
Author’s Original:
3
Although prosecution is not the answer, there is a place where the law can do some
good. See eg Pruitt, Joanna L., Pusey, Portia, and Leary, Mary, “The Child As Victim
And Perpetrator: Moderating The Laws Punishing Juvenile Sexting”, 13 Vanderbilt Jrn’l
of Entm’t and Technology Law 129, 149 (2010). Some courts agree. See e.g. State of
Utah in the interest of C.Z., a minor, 165 P.3d 1209 (Utah Supreme Ct. 2008)
(condemning the “absurd outcome” that results from over zealous prosecutions).
Edited Version:
3
You supply the edited footnote.
Author’s Original:
4
There are a number of reasons that prosecution is an inappropriate response to
teenage sexting. See, e.g., K. Schorsh, “Sexting may spell court for children,” Chicago
Tribune (January 29, 2010), p. B4 (exculpatingly insufficient neurological
development); Robert D. Richards & Clay Calvert, When Sex and Cell Phones Collide:
Page 7 of 8
EXAM NUMBER: #### BBE
Inside the Prosecution of a Teen Sexting Case, 31 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT. L. J. 166,
171 (2009) (punishment too severe); Wastler, S., “The Harm in Sexting?” (Harv. Univ.
2010) (constitutional concerns).
Edited Version:
4
You supply the edited footnote.
Author’s Original:
5
See, generally, Amy Adele Hasinoff, Sexting as Media Production: Rethinking
Social Media, Sexuality, and the Law, in A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE, supra note 7, at 24
(advocating legislative action to make the distinction between sexting and child
pornography perspicuous); see also A.H., 949 So. 2d at 239 (where the court reversed
the lower court conviction of a teen prosecuted under Florida’s child pornography laws
for sexting her boyfriend); but see Batman et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
189 F.2d 107, 109 (1951), cert. denied 342 U.S.877 (1951); compare A.H. v State of
Florida, 949 So. 2d 234, 239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (disagreeing with court below)
and State of Utah ex rel. Z.C., 165 P.3d 1206, 1209 (Utah 2008) (same) with Canal, 773
N.W.2d at 533 (affirming judgment below); see Philadelphia District Atty.’s Off., supra
note 5, at 150.
Edited Version:
5
You supply the edited footnote.
Author’s Original:
6
See U.S. CONST. amend. IV; Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 268
(2002) (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting); N.C. GEN. STAT. § 14-190.16 (2008); MASS. GEN.
LAWS ch. 272, § 29B(a)-(c) (2010); 18 U.S.C. § 2252 (2012 & Supp. 2015); SmithPeterson, supra note 2, at 64; Schorsh, supra note 14; Wastler, supra note 14, at 688;
Richards & Calvert, supra note 6, at 177; POWELL, supra note 1, at 174; Batman, 189
F.2d at 109; Miller, 598 F.3d at 155; Canal, 773 N.W.2d at 533; A.H., 949 So. 2d at 239.
Edited Version:
6
You supply the edited footnote.
Page 8 of 8
EXAM NUMBER: #### BBE
2016 Writing Competition for
Boston College Law School Student Publications
PREFERENCE SHEET
Rank your preferences on the lines below. Note that you need not rank all five; in
fact, rank only those publications for which you will accept a staff position should it be
offered. THE PREFERENCE SHEET WILL NOT BE GIVEN TO THE
STUDENT EVALUATORS: YOU WILL BE JUDGED SOLELY ON THE
QUALITY OF YOUR WORK.
1st Choice:
2nd Choice:
3rd Choice:
4th Choice:
5th Choice:
(NOTE: If you are in the second year of a joint degree program, or are otherwise
using an exam number that was NOT issued at the beginning of this academic year,
please make sure to requisition a new exam number from Academic Services—
otherwise, you may be using an exam number that has been reassigned to another
student.)
When you are done, attach this document to an email, and send it to BlueBook@bc.edu.