Child porn legislation is ill-suited to such adolescent indiscretion.

IT'S a trend that has caught parents, schools and police by surprise: who would have thought that, given mobile phones and computers with cameras, teenagers would take raunchy pictures of themselves and send them to each other?

''Sexting'' is now so widespread that many school principals have tales of the devastating personal consequences of a sext gone viral.

Typically, these tales involve a teenage girl sending an explicit picture of herself to her boyfriend. A week later, when they break up, he forwards the picture to a couple of mates, and then with the press of a ''send'' button the footy club, the cricket club and finally the broader school community has seen it.

In many cases, schools deal with these matters in-house, counselling the participants and doing their best to re-call the images. In some cases, police are called. They have two options: use their discretion to warn those involved or press charges.

But in Victoria, there are no laws written with teen sexters in mind. ''Pressing charges'' thrusts young people headlong into the serious jurisdiction of child pornography laws.

These were not written with teenagers in mind. They were crafted in the early 1990s to tackle the proliferation of extreme and vile images depicting the sexual abuse of young children. Designed to tackle these awful crimes, the laws lack subtlety and, just as importantly, judicial discretion.

Under the Crimes Act, a 16-year-old girl who takes a photograph of herself in her underwear and sends it to the 17-year-old youth she is legally allowed to have sex with can be charged with manufacturing and transmitting child pornography.

The young man can be charged with possessing child pornography. If he turns 18 and the image remains, perhaps forgotten, in the photo collection on his phone, his predicament becomes even more serious.

A guilty verdict for an adult possessing child pornography results in a five-year listing on the Victorian sex offender register. Even if he had not asked his girlfriend to send the image to him in the first instance!

The Victorian Parliament is conducting a much-needed inquiry into whether the law is adequately framed to deal with adolescent sexting.

It is long overdue because when it comes to sexting, the law is more out of step with teen behaviour than a dad on a school social dance floor.

While we certainly need to educate teenagers about the foolishness and danger of making explicit photos of themselves available to anyone, we also need to accept that ''just say no'' has never worked as a tactic with young people. Instead, specially framed laws are needed to deal with the nuance and complexity of sexting.

The laws need to take account of intent and consent. If a young woman intentionally takes a revealing picture of herself and sends it to her boyfriend, neither ought be regarded as having committed a criminal offence.

If he forwards it or posts it online without her consent then he, and anyone else who does the same, ought to be charged with a criminal offence.

When young women are photographed in revealing contexts by coercion or without their consent - perhaps they were drunk or set up at a party - those involved in taking and sharing such images should be liable for criminal sanction.

In the US, where sexting first began as a celebrity pastime, some states have brought in laws reducing the penalties for adolescent sexting or decriminalising the activity altogether.

Vermont has a teen sexting law that spares sanction for first-time offenders. But those caught a second time are exposed to the full force of laws designed to prevent the sexual exploitation of children. In Illinois, teens caught sexting do not face criminal charges but are sent to counselling under mandatory supervision programs. But in an attempt to focus on third-party distribution of the images - which is often where the worst harm occurs for the victim - harsh consequences remain for those who are not romantically involved with the person in the image but pass it on.

In Nebraska, the law differentiates between those who maliciously distribute sexts to third parties and those who send them with the intent of them being seen by the recipient alone.

As one US legal commentator wrote: ''Nebraska's approach illustrates the legal and conceptual difficulty facing lawmakers in many states considering sexting legislation. Where is the line to be drawn between teen folly and wilful, malicious embarrassment to the individual depicted at the hands of one originally in consensual possession of a sexting image?''

It is indeed a tricky question and we ought to applaud State Parliament for grappling with it.

There are injustices at play for teenagers growing up in this state. It is high time we put this right.

Nicole Brady is a senior writer.