Dear Editor,

Something that is commonplace in our modern Jamaican society that we tend to not discuss openly is sexting or virtual sex. It is something that occurs frequently, whether in committed romantic relationships, casual sexual relationships, or whatever other “entanglements” in which people are now engaging.

Usually, this involves the sharing of explicit and sometimes pornographic images or videos of themselves. This behaviour is extremely risky, dangerous, and should be discouraged, but even more seriously, in some cases, it can give rise to criminal liability. The Cybercrimes Act was passed in 2015 to combat the evolution of digital crimes, but it has been further amended in 2026 to address crimes involving the use of a computer to publish sexual images without consent.

In everyday scenarios, many instances of revenge porn have occurred in which there is a falling out between partners at the end of a relationship and suddenly explicit images or videos which were shared in private suddenly go into public circulation. Usually this is as a result of an intentional sharing or publication of private personal sexual content by one of the individuals involved in the initial private exchange with the objective of shaming or harming the other person.

To combat this damaging behaviour, section 9 (1A) of the Cybercrimes Act provides that the publication of intimate images without the person’s consent is an offence punishable by a fine of up to $4 million or four years imprisonment. If the publication causes damage then the penalty can increase to a maximum of $5 million or five years imprisonment. This was a recent amendment to the legislation by lawmakers to treat with the rampant nature of this very serious offence.

Furthermore, it was the intention of Parliament in the latest amendment to the Act to address the possibility of people using artificial intelligence (AI) and software to generate and publish explicit images of individuals to cause distress. “Intimate image” is defined in the Act as any image that depicts sexual activity, nudity, or partial nudity, and that is captured, generated, or created by photography, film, video, or other means.

Consequently, this definition is sufficient to capture would-be offenders who rely on computer programs to use innocent images of people and alter and manipulate them to create X-rated images or content. This is a crucial statutory provision in the era of AI deepfakes. The treatment of the publication of intimate AI images of real people is the same as the penalty for publishing real intimate images without consent.

Regarding specific legal protections for minors, it should be noted that the age of consent for sexual intercourse in Jamaica is 16 years old; however, minors, defined as any person under the age of 18 years old, cannot consent to the sharing of any sexually explicit or intimate images of themselves.

Section 9 provides that an offence involving the sharing or publication of intimate images of a minor is punishable by imprisonment of up to 20 years. There is no exemption in the application of this penalty to a minor who shares intimate images of another minor. This factor should be considered when informing adolescents about the severe consequences of sharing sexual images between themselves and their partners or among their peers.

Beyond the unauthorised sharing of media, in many intimate relationships in which there are deep-seated trust issues and suspicions of infidelity, this often leads to the searching of a phone or personal computer in secret. These devices are usually password-protected or locked with some security mechanism for which the suspicious partner often finds some ingenious method of bypassing. While this might seem harmless, it is actually illegal. This would constitute an offence under section 3 of the Cybercrimes Act, specifically the unauthorised access to computer program or data. This offence is punishable by a fine of up to $3 million or up to three years ‘imprisonment.

Ultimately, many of the sexual communications that people are engaging in virtually may be leaving them exposed to harm in the future. The law, however, has stepped in to offer redress and punish would-be offenders who seek to take advantage of the deep intimate trust once shared in these relationships to create mischief.

We should, however, remember that once something is on the Internet, it can never truly be totally removed, so my advice is that prevention is better than cure. Importantly, we must remember the teaching from 1 Corinthian 6:19-20. Our bodies do not belong to us, but to God, and we should glorify Him with it. This message from God is better than any risky text we could ever send or receive.

Payton Patterson

pjpattersonlegal@gmail.com