Is Sexting Illegal in Washington DC

Whether sexting is illegal in the District of Columbia depends on the ages of the people involved and on what was sent. Images of adults exchanged consensually are treated differently from images of a person under 18. Where a person under 18 appears in the image, D.C. Code § 22-3102 can apply, and it can apply even where the minor sent an image of themselves, subject to the limited carve-outs in subsection (c). That section states no penalty of its own, so it should always be read with D.C. Code § 22-3103, which makes the offense a felony and provides a fine or up to 10 years for a first offense and a fine or up to 20 years for a second and each subsequent offense. Sharing an adult’s image onward without consent is governed by different provisions, D.C. Code § 22-3052 and D.C. Code § 22-3053. Request a consultation. Calls to Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. reach the firm at (888) 437-7747.

On this page

Why the Answer Turns on Age and on What Was Sent

Two variables do most of the work, and the first is age. D.C. Code § 22-3001 defines a child as a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 and a minor as a person under 18, and the sexual performance provisions run to minors. The 2010 amendment raised the covered age from 16 to 18, so a person who is 16 or 17 is inside the scope of those provisions.

The second variable is what was sent and what happened to it afterward. An exchange between adults who both agreed to it is a different question from an image forwarded to someone the depicted person never agreed to share it with. D.C. Code § 22-3001 defines consent as words or overt actions indicating a freely given agreement, and states that lack of resistance resulting from force, threats, or coercion is not consent.

Those variables point to different parts of the code. If a person under 18 appears in the image, the analysis runs through D.C. Code § 22-3102 and its penalty section, D.C. Code § 22-3103. If everyone depicted is an adult and the image was passed along without agreement, the analysis runs through D.C. Code § 22-3052 or D.C. Code § 22-3053.

When a Person Under 18 Appears in the Image

D.C. Code § 22-3102 covers knowingly employing, authorizing, or inducing a person under 18 to engage in a sexual performance; producing, directing, or promoting such a performance; and knowingly attending, transmitting, or possessing a sexual performance by a minor. The last grouping is the one that surprises people, because it lists possession alongside transmission. Both groupings sit in the same section.

A minor who sends an image of themselves can fall within the statute as written, which is why subsection (c) matters. It carves out limited exceptions for depicted minors and for near-age recipients where the depicted minor consented to transmission. Those exceptions are narrow, and they turn on who was depicted, who received the material, the ages involved, and whether the depicted minor consented to transmission.

Penalties do not appear in D.C. Code § 22-3102 at all. They appear in D.C. Code § 22-3103, which makes the offense a felony and provides a fine or up to 10 years for a first offense and a fine or up to 20 years for a second and each subsequent offense. Registration is a further consequence, because D.C. Code § 22-4001 lists registration offenses that include specified obscenity and sexual performance offenses where the victim is a minor.

Sharing an Adult’s Image Without Consent

When the person depicted is an adult, the District of Columbia addresses unwanted distribution through its non-consensual pornography provisions. D.C. Code § 22-3052 governs unlawful disclosure, a misdemeanor carrying a fine, up to 180 days, or both. D.C. Code § 22-3053 governs first-degree unlawful publication, a felony carrying a fine, up to 3 years, or both.

The distinction matters, because a misdemeanor disclosure allegation and a felony publication allegation are not the same accusation and do not carry the same exposure. Anyone describing a case involving an adult’s image should be able to say which section is in play and why. Both sections address an adult’s image, so the age questions raised by D.C. Code § 22-3102 are not part of this analysis.

Consent sits at the center of both provisions, and the definitions section supplies the meaning the code uses. Consent means words or overt actions indicating a freely given agreement, and lack of resistance resulting from force, threats, or coercion is not consent. Whether the depicted adult agreed to the original exchange is a separate question from whether that person agreed to onward sharing. Treating the first as an answer to the second is where many of these situations go wrong.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is sexting between two adults illegal in the District of Columbia?

The statutes discussed here address sexual performances involving minors and the disclosure or publication of an adult’s image without consent. A consensual exchange between adults is not what D.C. Code § 22-3052 or D.C. Code § 22-3053 is aimed at, because both turn on the absence of consent. Exposure appears when an image moves beyond the person it was sent to.

Can a minor be charged for sending an image of themselves?

The conduct described in D.C. Code § 22-3102 includes transmitting a sexual performance by a minor, and the section does not carve out the depicted person in its general prohibitions. That is why subsection (c) exists, providing limited exceptions for depicted minors and for near-age recipients where the depicted minor consented to transmission. Whether they apply is a fact-specific question about ages, roles, and consent to transmission.

What do the subsection (c) carve-outs cover?

Subsection (c) of D.C. Code § 22-3102 sets out limited exceptions for depicted minors and for near-age recipients where the depicted minor consented to transmission. The word limited matters, because these are specific exceptions written into the statute, not a broad rule that images exchanged between young people are permitted. Applying them requires identifying who was depicted, who received the image, and the ages of each person.

Does D.C. Code § 22-3102 carry a penalty?

No. That section describes prohibited acts and states no penalty of its own, which is why it should always be cited alongside D.C. Code § 22-3103. The penalty section makes the offense a felony and provides a fine or up to 10 years for a first offense, and a fine or up to 20 years for a second and each subsequent offense.

What if an image was received but never forwarded?

D.C. Code § 22-3102 lists knowingly attending, transmitting, or possessing a sexual performance by a minor. Possession appears alongside transmission, so the fact that nothing was sent onward does not by itself remove the conduct from the section’s text. Subsection (c) can matter here, since it addresses near-age recipients where the depicted minor consented to transmission.

What are the penalties for sharing an adult’s image without consent?

D.C. Code § 22-3052 addresses unlawful disclosure and is a misdemeanor carrying a fine, up to 180 days, or both. D.C. Code § 22-3053 addresses first-degree unlawful publication and is a felony carrying a fine, up to 3 years, or both. Which provision a case falls under changes the exposure, so it is worth establishing early which one the allegation rests on.

Does it matter that the person in the image is 16 or 17?

Yes. D.C. Code § 22-3001 defines a minor as a person under 18, and the 2010 amendment raised the age covered by the sexual performance provisions from 16 to 18. The definition of child as a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 belongs to other offenses in Title 22 and does not narrow those provisions.

Can a sexting case lead to sex offender registration?

D.C. Code § 22-4001 supplies registration definitions, and registration offenses include specified obscenity and sexual performance offenses where the victim is a minor, along with any offense under Chapter 30 of Title 22. A charge under D.C. Code § 22-3102 therefore carries registration exposure that belongs in the conversation from the start. Ask about it before making any decision about how to resolve the matter.

Mr. Sris, Owner and Founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., is a former prosecutor and is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York. The firm was founded in 1997 and concentrates in criminal defense, including allegations under the District of Columbia sexual performance and non-consensual pornography provisions. Matters are staffed as Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys, with assignments made according to what the case requires and the court’s schedule. Because the answer depends on ages, on who consented to what, and on which section the government selects, the charging language is read closely at the outset. The firm keeps a 24/7 phone intake. Request a consultation. Calls reach the firm at (888) 437-7747.

This page provides general information and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. Results may vary.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.