Sharing explicit photos without consent isn't just morally wrong—it's illegal, too.
And sharing explicit photos of a teenager without consent is even more illegal.
But don't tell NY Magazine that.
In a recent article titled "Canceled at 17" published by The Cut, journalist Elizabeth Weil told the story of the pseudonymed "Diego"—a teenage boy who shared nude photos of his then-girlfriend without her consent to do so.
The Cut shared a thread on Twitter about the article.
\u201cOne such student, Diego, has been shunned in the hallways and classrooms of his high school ever since word got out that he\u2019d shown off a nude photo of his girlfriend while drunk at a party https://t.co/cfaYcEpfWm\u201d— The Cut (@The Cut) 1655814647
The incident—which took place shortly after the students returned to in-person learning in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic—framed Diego as the victim of a teenage "mean girl"-type cancellation instead of the justified ostracization of a young man who engaged in underage drinking and predatory behavior.
And needless to say, Twitter wasn't having it.
\u201cThe way this article frames Diego as the one we should feel sorry for is why the girls made a list. They're the ones looking out for their safety while adults who write for major publications are still trying to make you feel bad for the boys who harm them.\u201d— Kat | Parrannnah on AO3 (@Kat | Parrannnah on AO3) 1655853550
Some users felt NY Mag was making much ado about nothing, with many pointing out Diego's punishment didn't quite fit the crime.
\u201c"canceled at 17 \u2639\ufe0f\ud83d\ude22" and your subject showed someone else's nudes at a party...and got his name written on a bathroom wall in response...and you want me to feel bad for him\u201d— ke (@ke) 1655864088
\u201cDude was my camp counselor, groomed me, took a lot of nude pictures of me and then showed them to random strangers at the bar. Would have been so sick if anything, at all, happened about that!!!!\u201d— Italian Elon Musk (@Italian Elon Musk) 1655906121
\u201cthis is what makes it so difficult to talk about the punitive ways--esp online--we can shun and ostracize each other. a guy getting shunned by his peers for sharing nudes feels like a consequence. what happens to marginalized teens who are just being themselves is something else.\u201d— Italian Elon Musk (@Italian Elon Musk) 1655906121
\u201cThe \u201cCanceled at 17\u201d piece actually made me physically angry. Framing assault, bullying, etc as a \u201cmistake\u201d and demanding that the abused be required to give their forgiveness \u2014 when the system has failed them & they had to take matters into their own hands \u2014 is absurd.\u201d— Ruth Etiesit Samuel (@Ruth Etiesit Samuel) 1655828299
Some users engaged in gallows humor, with many pointing out that this sort of non-punishment and "boys will be boys" mentality has been going on since time immemorial.
\u201cthe classic reaction to stories like this from the substackerati is to say "and people say cancel culture isn't real" but this entire story is just a gender- (and guilt) flipped version of behavior that has been happening for literally ever https://t.co/2IFJibHlgS\u201d— Julia Carrie Wong (@Julia Carrie Wong) 1655820995
\u201cis shunning appropriate in all cases? no\nis shunning appropriate when a girl or boy engages in consensual sexual activity? no\nis shunning appropriate when a teen engages in non-consensual sexual activity? ACTUALLY SOMETIMES YES\u201d— Julia Carrie Wong (@Julia Carrie Wong) 1655820995
\u201cthinking a lot about what the word beautiful is doing in this graf\u201d— Julia Carrie Wong (@Julia Carrie Wong) 1655820995
\u201cWhy would I have compassion or understanding for a teenage boy showing nudes of his girlfriend? Or the other boys who had a group chat showing photos of girls? \u201cCanceled at 17?\u201d GIRL. PLEASE.\u201d— Gabrielle Perry, MPH (@Gabrielle Perry, MPH) 1655826610
\u201cGoing through everyone who liked that Canceled at 17 story and doing ctrl+f on their page for \u2018West Elm Caleb\u2019\u201d— Mike? (@Mike?) 1656004151
And still others pointed out aside from the horrifically wrong take, the article was just plain bad.
\u201cCanceled at 17 as a headline is sexual assault apologia designed to make the boy seem innocent or victim of unjustified online harassment when in reality he violated a woman's boundaries and committed a sadly common form of sexual violence towards her\u201d— \ud83c\udf4b Nami Izunia \ud83c\udf4b \ud83c\udf48\ud83c\udf4f\ud83c\udf51\ud83e\udd5d\ud83c\udf50 (@\ud83c\udf4b Nami Izunia \ud83c\udf4b \ud83c\udf48\ud83c\udf4f\ud83c\udf51\ud83e\udd5d\ud83c\udf50) 1655917844
\u201cI tried reading that New York article "Canceled at 17" and I couldn't get through because the author went out of their way to repeatedly describe how physically attractive high schoolers were. Anyone else?\u201d— The Leshy of Pennypack (@The Leshy of Pennypack) 1655937632
Yeah, that definitely was more than a bit cringe.
\u201cLook I\u2019m only five paragraphs deep into the Canceled At 17 piece but before we even get to the subject matter, this is not very well written is it????\u201d— Jess McGuire (@Jess McGuire) 1655870267
Quality—or lack thereof—of the journalism aside, there are state-by-state differences in the laws surrounding sharing explicit teen photos with or without the teen's permission.
And the penalties range from a financial fine to actual jail time and having to register as a sex offender.
So it's safe to say Diego got off easy with just a little bit of social ostracization as his "punishment."
But I think we can all agree private photos are just that—private—that you should never share pictures of anyone besides yourself without permission.
@jmrphy/X
@CatholicCharm/X
@SWENGDAD/X
@nhoodpublicist/X
@jmrphy/X
@0xPuff/X