Sexting

A 16-Year-Old Girl Is Facing Child Pornography Charges for Making a Sex Video of Herself

A finding of guilt would be an attack on the autonomy and self-ownership of all young people

|

Maryland's highest court will soon decide whether a 16-year-old girl, "S.K.," can face child pornography charges for taking a video of herself performing a sex act and sending it to a few of her close friends.

S.K. shared the video, in which she performs consensual oral sex on an unidentified male, with two close friends and fellow students, who later reported her to the school resource officer. S.K. was the only person charged in connection with the alleged crime.

The Special Court of Appeals upheld S.K.'s conviction, ruling that the consensual nature of the sex act in question was irrelevant, as was the fact that it was not illegal for S.K. to perform the act. Taking a video of the act and sending it to other people constituted distribution of child pornography, according to the court's decision.

"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution did not protect conduct of a minor who distributed a digital video file of herself engaged as a subject in consensual sexual conduct," wrote the court.

The Maryland Court of Appeals' ruling is expected later this year. The court, which is Maryland's equivalent of a state supreme court, heard oral arguments in February. The proceedings are recorded here. S.K.'s attorney, Public Defender Claudia Cortese, argued that the statute in question was not intended to punish minors for being featured in pornographic materials, but rather, to protect them. Punishing S.K., as the state has attempted to do, is cruel and authoritarian.

The state, on the other hand, has asserted that S.K. needs guidance, and that probation and a mandatory mental health evaluation were reasonable outcomes, The Washington Post reports:

At her initial hearing, the prosecutor said the state was not "trying to prove a point in going forward with this case," but that "the state believes that the respondent is in need of some guidance, rehabilitation for something deeper" and "is just trying to help her."

Because her case on the distribution of child pornography was in juvenile court, the teen never faced a mandatory sentence or the possibility of having to register as a sex offender. She was put on probation and referred for a mental health evaluation.

That teens shouldn't send sexy videos to each other—because they are bound to get out, cause embarrassment, and raise legal issues—is something S.K.'s parents, teachers, and school administrators could have impressed upon her without the heavy-handed involvement of the police and courts. It is draconian to charge a 16-year-old girl with trafficking in child pornography because she willingly filmed herself performing oral sex. Upholding S.K.'s conviction would set a disturbing precedent.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

238 responses to “A 16-Year-Old Girl Is Facing Child Pornography Charges for Making a Sex Video of Herself

  1. heard oral arguments in February. The proceedings are recorded here.

    Spoiler, it’s not what you hoped it would be.

    1. Not even a flash of some sweet armpit!

      1. Show me some ankle, baby!

        1. Or at least some gall bladder, if’m ye only had the GALL, fer Chrissakes!

      2. “armpit”??? WTF’s wrong with you? What IS that? Some kind of “armpit” fettish? C’mon…

    2. “An attack on the autonomy and self-ownership of all young people.”
      I’m sorry but you can’t have it both ways. Either she’s old enough to self-manage her autonomy as suggested by this assertion, which by necessity includes following the laws generally, including those against manufacturing and distributing child pornography, even of herself, or she’s not. Let’s assume that she does not face any legal consequence; since we must apply the law equally, all minors (of any age) can now film themselves, singularly or in groups for that matter, distribute the material, and even arguably be paid for it, yet suffer no legal consequence. Imagine the likely result; minors encouraged by predatory adults to “go ahead and film yourself and post it to this site; I can’t help you, but don’t worry, you can’t be prosecuted.”

      1. Since when is a 16 year old girl a child? H _ _ _, they’re filling out a 10 to 12 years old now. Put me on her jury and she walks.

        1. Notably, back in the days of VHS, a whole lot of porn movies had to be destroyed because the quite-established porn actress started working at 16, and convinced all co-stars, producers, and crew that she was of legal age.

          That’s the problem with using chronological age as a proxy for maturity… sometimes they line up, and sometimes they really don’t.

          That said, it’s fairly well-known that the body develops before the brain really knows how to control it. There may be grass on the field, but she’s not ready to play. She needs time to learn the rules.

          1. “That said, it’s fairly well-known that the body develops before the brain really knows how to control it. There may be grass on the field, but she’s not ready to play. She needs time to learn the rules.”

            On the other hand, it could be argued that not letting kids “play” until 4-10 years* after their libido kicks in is cruel and unjust.

            As to knowing how to control it, I seriously doubt that it can be said with any certainty that this is a matter of physiological development as opposed to training and/or experience, which society goes out of it’s way to try to keep them from getting.

            *Typical range for age of onset of puberty in the US is (8-14).

            1. “it could be argued that not letting kids “play” until 4-10 years* after their libido kicks in is cruel and unjust.”

              This isn’t about letting her play. Nobody said there was anything illegal about that. This is a case about making a recording, which has different rules (for good or ill).

            2. “cruel and unjust” seems a bit on the hysterical and possibly self serving side.

              Opening this Pandora’s box will do exactly what mperse said. Children will be exploited. I think it’s silly that a child can be punished for voluntarily filming themselves and voluntarily distributing it. But how do you tell the difference. Children protect their abusers is a real thing.

              If someone who has authority over them decides to force them to film themselves as part of their abuse, of course it’s “consensual”. They’d swear to it in court if they were afraid of the consequences of telling the truth.

    3. As an IT professional and someone who has been involved with similar situations, I have to 100% disagree. By your application then child pornographers can simply maintain that the footage was shot and disseminated by the participants and get of without penalty. The personal problem here is a 16 year old girl filming herself performing a sex act… the LEGAL issue here is the distribution of that. What if she charged the recipients? What if she advertised underage custom-made sex videos? I am not applying the hypothetical to this case, but I am saying that your desired treatment would be a dangerous precedent. The clear and bright line CHILDREN need to know, learn and abide by is to not send their sexual images out into the ether under any circumstance.

      1. Clearly, we need a new name for this.

        “Child porn” involves children… persons who are sexually immature. You need a name that includes people who are not children, but not yet legally allowed to exercise their own judgment, either.

        Then, we need an affirmative defense of “permission” that covers distribution and possession charges. If the defendant can show that the victim allowed the distribution or possession, the defense wins. That stops prosecutors from bringing charges in cases like this.

    4. There’s no doubt that if an adult male were to be sent and receive said video, even if he didn’t request or solicit the video, they would be criminally liable for having received it all the same. Is it child pornography? Yes. Did she distribute it? Yes. The potential threat to others who may become implicated by her actions is immeasurable. This isn’t about “personal autonomy”. This is about breaking the law and enforcing adequate judicial consequences. No free pass.

      1. Fuck you. You seem to be suggesting that this girl should have the rest of her life ruined over something that is basically harmless.

        There is a HUGE difference between a sexually charged sixteen year old girl and the kind of child a person thinks of when “child porn” is mentioned. Considering the current state of sexual misconduct related to minors, you are saying very clearly that this girl should never be able to work again. She should never be allowed within a mile of a school. She should be shunned and hated by everybody who learns of her.

        You deserve to suffer from painful ass cancer.

        1. Sorry, but this is just emotionally charged nonsense. The point of having the rule of law is that the law is consistent and predictable, and that includes implementing laws even when they may be have an immediate negative impact on a specific case.

          Mardigalian’s point is a genuine one that you haven’t answered — any adult who would’ve received such a video with or without their soliciting it, would have made him criminally liable. You can’t just demand that the law be lenient on self-producers of child pornography in this situation, because the negative impact of the crime is not to the child individually, but to possible innocent third parties. The fact that this specific incident didn’t end up risking someone else’s freedom doesn’t mean the precedent doesn’t need to be set.

          This sort of emotionally motivated opposition to *having a functioning legal system* is just extremely dangerous for civilisation.

          1. “The point of having the rule of law is that the law is consistent and predictable, and that includes implementing laws even when they may be have an immediate negative impact on a specific case.”

            Law is a tool. If the tool gives you undesired results, you change how you use it. The same is true of ANY tool. The alternative is insanity.

      2. “if an adult male were to be sent and receive said video, even if he didn’t request or solicit the video, they would be criminally liable for having received it all the same.”

        So you recognize this law is unjust – and you’re complaining that it’s not hard enough on a _child_.

      3. There’s no doubt that if an adult male were to be sent and receive said video, even if he didn’t request or solicit the video, they would be criminally liable for having received it all the same.

        I doubt that.

  2. So tell me again about this ‘my body, my choice’ bullshit.
    She is old enough to kill a baby.
    She is old enough to change to a man.
    So what’s up with a nice simple home video?

    1. People hear “child porn” and lose all reason. As if a 16 year old videoing herself is equivalent to raping a two year old.

      1. Hypothetically, though, a business savvy minor could use court leniency on this issue to their advantage. Not saying that this is the case above.

        1. In my mind, 16 year-olds being criminally punished for something like this is a worse problem than a 16 year-old appearing in a porno.

        2. And? Does that merit bringing the full power of the state down on them?

          1. No, I don’t think the state should be involved in any case like this (I understand that I implied that I did above, so my bad).

      2. Palin’s Buttplug and Pedo Jeffy got excited by the article until they realized it said ‘16 year old’ And not ‘6 year old’.

        At which point they both lost interest and went back to watching the Disney Channel.

      3. Not equivalent, but still bad. But you already knew that the penalties for an adult raping a 2 year old are far harsher than the probation she faced, so you are trying to assert an alleged equivalence that does not exist. Do you favor a right of 16 year olds to film themselves and, more importantly to this situation, distribute the material? What about a 15 year old? a 14 year old? Do we draw no line as a society?

        1. The problem is that we as a society can’t really agree on where to draw the line. The feds drew it at 18. For age of consent, the states are split three ways between 18, 17, and 16. 16 is the clear majority at 30 states, 18 is second at 12 states and 17 is third at just 8 states. Drawing the line at a minority position that is also the strictest make no sense to me.

          Ages of consent in the United States

          My Lines:
          Personally, I would tie the age cutoff for child porn to age of consent where made. I would also tie legal access to port to the age of consent. If you are old enough to have sex, it shouldn’t be a problem if you see nudity or other people having sex.

          Also, I would consider a significantly lower age of consent. In the US in 1880, the spread for age of consent was 10-12. Personally I wouldn’t go that low. From what I’ve read, most kids (80%) have at least started puberty by age 14. So I would consider that. Making teens wait two long after the libido kicks in is a recipe for disaster.

          For statutory rape:
          With in 3 years of being legal = misdemeanor.
          10 to 3years shy of legal = minor felony.
          8 to 10 major felony
          under 8 = capitol crime.

          No one who is under age can be charged with statutory rape.

          I would also make mistake of age (if the minor is within 2 years of the age of consent) and deliberate age fraud by the minor(there are documented cases of girls misrepresenting their age to get sex) valid defenses.

          1. “I would also make mistake of age (if the minor is within 2 years of the age of consent) and deliberate age fraud by the minor(there are documented cases of girls misrepresenting their age to get sex) valid defenses.”

            The reason we don’t have that is because it would allow defense counsel to quiz the victim, on the witness stand, about their sex life, which is mostly fine if the victim did, in fact, lie about their age to get laid, not fine at all if they didn’t. Nothing like ripping into a rape victim as part of your court process to encourage rape victims to come forward!

            1. If it was forcible rape, they can charge that even if the victim is under age (and the penalties are generally higher). A statutory rape charge implies some degree of consent even if that consent isn’t legally recognized.

              I don’t agree that the psychological trauma issues are remotely compatible to a forcible rape case for a pubescent or post pubescent statutory rape victim.

              1. “If it was forcible rape, they can charge that even if the victim is under age”

                Duh. What’s that got to do with it. If it was murder, they can charge that, too. If it was jaywalking, they can charge that.

                ” A statutory rape charge implies some degree of consent even if that consent isn’t legally recognized. ”

                It doesn’t. Statutory rape is easy to prove, because there’s only two elements to prove… 1) sex happened, and 2) one of the participants was underage at the time. There’s no “he said, she said” about how old a person is.

                “I don’t agree that the psychological trauma issues are remotely compatible to a forcible rape case for a pubescent or post pubescent statutory rape victim.”

                Neither does anyone else.

                1. I think at some point age fraud is a factor, for imagine if both parties are careful to examine each other’s government ID, and one ID is fake and the party is underage, to then file statutory rape charges. Should the accused be sentenced?

    2. The state has two options for protecting children from people who bully them into producing child pornography by threatening to punch them in the face.

      1) Go after people who punch children in the face, but that is difficult and scary, because those assailants might lie about it and they might punch police officers in the face.

      2) Assign a school official to watch any child pornography featuring students at his school from the safety of his desk so the police can arrest minors who could never put up much of a fight.

      Guess which method we’ve picked as a society. The solution to violence against children is to going after violent people, not going after the children.

      1. Well, if you were going for the award in the category of Oversimplifying or Mischaracterizing the argument, I’d say you were a shoe in.

  3. Two conversations parents need to have with their kids:
    1) Making and sending nude selfies/sex videos is probably a bad idea, and once you share them with another person you can assume they will spread beyond your control.
    2) The School Resource Officer is absolutely, positive, NOT your friend, and is not looking out for your best interests.

    1. and once you share them with another person you can assume they will spread beyond your control.

      Once you share them with another person, they are by definition out of your control.

      /nitpick

      1. Fair point.

      2. Um, how about once you share them with another person you have committed a federal crime?

        /not notpicking

        1. 21-year-old sends slut-pics of himself or herself, becomes Kardashian-type superheroes…

          17-year-old sends slut-pics of himself or herself, becomes criminal to be persecuted and hounded and tagged for the rest of his-her life… WTF, can YE EXPLAIN?!?! “As you would, to a child”!

          /not notpicking

          1. Hey, if you are broadcasting yourself on that website the day before your 18th birthday near the stroke of midnight, it is prudent to time the striptease routine so that everything is pg-13 until you are old enough to make it x-rated.

          2. WTF, can YE EXPLAIN?!?! “As you would, to a child”!

            Dude, I tell my kids the truth. Sharing those pictures can lead to prosecution for a federal crime. Wasn’t that the entire point of the article?

            1. Sadly, the first couple of prosecutions for girls photographing themselves hit the news while my daughter was underage; leading to that exact conversation… If it gets out, it can be embarrassing for you. Or you might be charged with a crime.

        2. Um, how about heeding the lesson Utility Maximizer was offering above, but noting that I was merely advancing his lesson further: Trust no one.

          1. “Stay alert, trust no one, and keep your laser handy.”

            1. You’re suffering from Paranoia, friend. Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.

              1. Well, maybe not HAL – – – –

                1. HAL was misunderstood.

                  1. And he grew up to become skynet – – – – –

                    1. All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landings there.

        3. How about stop worshipping government? There are many, many laws that are unjust, asinine, and blatantly unconstitutional, but you want us all to grovel and scrape to authority. Lemme guess- you were a hall monitor in school…

        4. She made a terrible horrible mistake. She should not be going to fucking jail for this.

          U Maximizer is absolutely correct – the School resource officer should be avoided at all cost. Never call the cops.

          Lord thank you for not making me a teenager today. 16 year old me would have shared the shit out of that video because 16 year old me was an unapologetic horny douche bag. Writing notes, folding them into quasi-origami fucking shapes, writing something somewhat clever or desperate on them, and passing them in class or between classes is a lost art.

          1. TBF: She is not going to jail. The article says she was given probation and referred to a psych evaluation.

            That said, I know from personal experience that the biggest threat to this kid’s mental health is a looming court case, lawyers and cops involving themselves in her personal intimate business, and the uncertainty that this all causes.

            1. In many states, child porn charges gets you on a sex offenders list.

              1. How do they make it a requirement that you stay at least 1000 feet from yourself?

    2. Ladies, I know what you all look like naked, because your boyfriends have all shared those private pictures with me. Seriously.

      Don’t let your boyfriend take pictures of you. I mean, duh.

      1. By shared, you mean posted on Pornhub, right?

        1. Either that or the eunuch security guard section in the Craigslist jobs postings. Someone has the keep the harem safe while the bread earner is at work.

          1. That reminds me, Ramadan in Tel Aviv can be a bit like the trailer to “The Purge”.

      2. Ladies, I know what you all look like naked, because your boyfriends have all shared those private pictures with me. Seriously.

        Don’t let your boyfriend take pictures of you. I mean, duh.

        Dude, shut up! Why are you telling them?

  4. No link to the video? What kind of gonzo journalism is this?

  5. If you’re going to have laws about child pornography they have to apply to children too.

    1. A criminal law so defined that the actions of a victim of the crime can also fall within the definition of the behavior being criminalized will eventually be used to punish victims.

      There is no reason to believe this is an unintended consequence.

      Next up: prosecuting failed suicide attempts, why should they get to walk away from attempted murder?

      1. She’s not a victim.

        1. Who is the victim of this crime?

          1. Who is the perpetrator? Seriously, the State wants to prosecute the perp so they can “help” the victim, one and the same person. How is that even possible?

            1. Because of moronic laws written by moronic legislators?

          2. Since when was a victim necessary to prosecute?

            1. The claim was “she is not the victim”, so the question was “who is”. Nothing in there about prosecuting.

          3. How about the people she sent it to as the victims? Sending a sex video to someone underage is probably illegal all by itself, whether or not the person depicted is underage.

      2. “Next up: prosecuting failed suicide attempts, why should they get to walk away from attempted murder?”

        You are at least 50 years too late for this.

        1. People throwing themselves off buildings and bridges create dangers for pedestrians below, and traffic problems for everybody.

          1. Precisely, but jumping from buildings isn’t the only suicide method that potentially endangers bystanders. Using a gun to commit suicide in an apartment building has the potential for the bullet to travel far enough to injure someone in an adjacent apartment.

      3. “Next up: prosecuting failed suicide attempts, why should they get to walk away from attempted murder?”

        Unnatural Manners of Death include:

        Suicide: the act of intentionally causing one’s own death.

        Murder: the act of intentionally and unlawfully causing the death of another human without justification or valid excuse.

        By definition suicide is not murder. Therefore, an attempted (failed) suicide is not attempted murder. It is attempted suicide.

        Suicide has been decriminalized in every State of the Union, except maybe Maryland, where suicide is still a state common law crime.

        22 Feb 2018 Caroline County MD convicted a man on a charge of attempted suicide in order to render him legally prohibited from buying/owning a gun. It is highly unlikely that anyone else will be prosecuted for attempted suicide in Maryland. While State’s Attorney Joseph Riley publicly defended the commissioners’ decision to charge the man, Riley asked commissioners to refrain from using the charge in future cases.

    2. “If you’re going to have laws about child pornography they have to apply to children too.”

      Not according to traditional principles of common law.

  6. unidentified male
    The best kind!

    1. I’m sure somehow it’ll end up as his fault and she was too blonde to consent or something.

    2. Is that a male who hasn’t yet identified as a male?

    3. Tony, did you have trouble this morning remembering how many dicks you sucked last night?

    4. Yeah, isn’t he guilty of making child porn too? Maybe not distribution, but certainly production, no?

      1. “Yeah, isn’t he guilty of making child porn too?”

        No, unless he provided or operated the phone the recording was made with. You’re confusing being in it with producing it.

  7. The question is what is the extent of our rights and responsibilities to prevent self destructive children from harming themselves.

    1. Seems like an issue that the government should stay out of entirely, or at least in cases similar to the case above

    2. The question is what is the extent of our rights and responsibilities to prevent self

      Let me stop you right there. None, zero, zilch. There is no good reason to criminalize ignorance, stupidity, or self-destruction that does not harm others. If you think there is, then fuck off, slaver.

      1. So you’d let your infant crawl into the street?

        1. So you’d let your brain crawl into cesspools of idiocy and brainless non-logic, and hyperbolic exaggerations? I am letting you drink this cup of water? No, you can NOT do THAT! Next thing ya know, you’ll be drinking the oceans dry!

          Well, OK, you’re doing all of that already! Nothing that truly ration folks can do to stop you…

          Carry on, fool!

        2. Reductio ad absurdum is so obviously to go to fallacy in this case. Can’t you even be original in your bid for the enslavement of the human soul to the state?

        3. I’m pretty sure that counts as stupidity that is likely to harm others.

        4. “So you’d let your infant crawl into the street?”

          Equivalence? Relevance? Anything remotely resembling the matter of discussion at all?

          1. I responded to the comment that attempted to dispute that adults have the right and responsibility to protect children from themselves.

            “There is no good reason to criminalize ignorance, stupidity, or self-destruction that does not harm others.”

            I gave an obvious example of an adults responsibility to protect a child from acting out their own desire.

            Stopping a baby from crawling in the street.

            Then a few dipshits lost their minds because they didn’t like the fact that my analogy proved that their ideology is wrongheaded.

            Adults do need to protect children from themselves and others any way necessary.

            1. I’d let the infant crawl into the street, then jail the infant for jaywalking and child endangerment. (This is my impression of you)

              1. Totes great reply. You can take over mocking Rob from here…

      2. Creation of voluntary porn featuring underage performers helps create a market for involuntary porn featuring underage performers.

        Is the argument, anyway.

    3. Why? I mean, you’re assuming that teenagers taking pictures of themselves – even those newfangled ‘moving pictures’ is self-destructive.

      Or else you’re moving the goalposts and bringing up something completely irrelevant into this.

      1. We have assigned a legal age of consent to protect children often from their own ignorance.

        Once those pictures are on the web, they are there to haunt her forever.

        1. Once those pictures are on the web, they are there to haunt her forever free advertising for her future career in porn, because ‘Her Body, Her Choice’.

          FTFY

          I can do this all day…

        2. Not answering the question I see.

          Again – what is the self-destructive behavior here? Or are you moving the goalposts again to bring up something completely irrelevant?

        3. Yes, we have. In Maryland, where this happened, the age of consent is 16. Your point, again?

          1. My point is that this is a question of our rights and responsibilities to protect children from themselves.

            It should make us review our contradicting laws that recognize adult consent and at the same time illegal child pornography.

            Why is the child referred to as S.K.? What are we protecting?

            If you don’t think that we have the responsibility to protect our children often against their immature wishes, don’t be surprised when the adults in the discussion dismiss you as irrational.

            1. Why should your identity here be protected with a fake name on the crap you post?

              Shouldn’t you be held accountable for your public statements?

              It seems you want your cake and to eat it too.

            2. It should make us review our contradicting laws that recognize adult consent and at the same time illegal child pornography.

              That is certainly true.

        4. “We have assigned a legal age of consent to protect children often from their own ignorance”

          Nobody’s accused her of violating an age of consent.

    4. that’s a nil-set.

    5. If you aren’t said child’s parent or legal guardian, you have no such rights or responsibilities.

      1. Bullshit.

        Children aren’t the chattel of their parents.

        The responsibility to protect them is therefore everyone’s.

        1. The second sentence in no way shape or form follows from the first.

        2. Here comes the “Village.”

          Every tin pot bureaucrat who desires to be a petty tyrant uses the same old trope, “It’s for the children.”

          Along the same lines as “the prosecutor said the state was not “trying to prove a point in going forward with this case,” but that “the state believes that the respondent is in need of some guidance, rehabilitation for something deeper” and “is just trying to help her.” AKA ‘this punishment is for your own good.”

          Which brings to mind something said by Ronald Reagan, about being from the government and here to help? The idiocy of regarding someone as both a victim and a perpetrator [of themselves] simply makes no sense, except as a justification of governmental overreach.

  8. Precisely what “guidance” or “rehabilitation” is needed in this scenario where, as the court notes, the sex act itself was entirely legal and would not result in obligatory “guidance” or “rehabilitation”?

    This ritualistic application of ‘the law’ hurts the very people the law is supposed to help. Zero tolerance laws make zero sense.

    1. Maybe the law is not intended to help anyone? Maybe it is just about punishment.

      This girl has enticed otherwise law abiding detectives and prosecutors into viewing child pornography. How can they ever get those images out of their heads unless she is punished in the public square. Preferably naked in the stockade, but they will suffer through some soft-core women’s prison stuff if they have to.

      1. That’s my point, Robert. If “sex is bad”, then the crime was the sex act. But according to the court, it wasn’t.

  9. Let me guess: our Great Heroes in Government Almighty have “reviewed” the video in question several times over?

    1. Don’t assume she’s hot. Could always be a fatty uggo you know.

  10. “the respondent is in need of some guidance, rehabilitation for something deeper”

    You know who else needed something deeper?

    1. Is it finally Hitler?

      1. It’s never Hitler, dude. You knew the rules when you enlisted.

  11. How many people will watch a video of a 16-year-old girl giving head as part of the “investigation”?

    You wanna legally watch kiddie porn? Become a vice cop.
    You wanna legally molest children? Join Child Services.

    1. Child molesters have historically joined the clergy or become Boy Scout leaders because it gave them access to and authority over their intended victims. Why would they NOT get a degree in child psychology and a job doing social work? It is an easy degree and literally the perfect cover for their perversion.

      1. What is it that you have against the Boy Scouts – who, historically, do not have a record of molesting children in their care.

        1. I don’t have anything against Scouts. I was not one growing up, but I have 2 sons who are Eagle Scouts, so I spent a lot of time with the organization and worked with leadership at the local and council level. The Scouting organization does not promote or condone molestation, and spends a lot of time and energy trying to prevent it, but there are a number of high profile lawsuits that demonstrate it has been infiltrated by predators on many occasions. Which it would, as it has historically provided a pool of young boys, the color of authority to leaders, and the isolation of camping trips and hikes in which to sniff out potential victims.

          The story detailed yesterday literally had a social worker undressing kids to examine their genitals in front of their mother, whose only offense was that she had left them in a car for 10 minutes to buy them muffins. That story has got to be like the bat-signal for pedophiles. Get a Child Psychology or Sociology degree. The State courts will pay you to deliver you information on vulnerable children, court ordered access, and a police escort to protect you while you undress them..

          1. BTW, Bat-Signal for Pedophiles is a horrible name for a rock band and a really, really sad nickname to be given in college.

          2. And your point in making the attack against the Boy Scouts was?

            Are you attacking day care centers? Schools? Bus Stops? All have been ‘infiltrated by molesters’ at one time or another.

            1. “The lady doth protest too much.” You know, there are “news” outlets that publish photos and stories of the victims of abuse by Catholic priests out partying or getting in trouble with the law so that the die-hard supporters of the priests can console themselves that it was really that these “victims” were lying and taking advantage of the priests, not considering that being abused by a priest might lead to some acting out. I have not seen the kind of cover-ups in scouting that it appears the Catholic church engaged in, but that doesn’t mean that abuse didn’t happen.

              It is simply true that there were issues in the Boy Scouts had some issues in the past with molesters taking on leadership roles. The Boy Scouts themselves provided a list of over 7,800 leaders that they believed had abused kids: https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/us/boy-scouts-sexual-abuse-allegations/index.html .

              It sounds like scouting is continuing to improve its policies to protect kids under their care, and that’s a good thing. But it’s also true that those inclined to abuse youth will look for opportunities, and some of them clearly found those opportunities in scouting.

            2. And your point in making the attack against the Boy Scouts was?

              It is fallacious to characterize my comments as an attack on the Scouts. I have pointed out that predators take advantage of organizations where men are given authority over children to highlight the danger inherent in the state CPS system. I presented the examples of the clergy and Scouts without specific criticism of those organizations. Yes, this also happens in schools and day care facilities. I have no idea how bus stops can be infiltrated as they are not organized.

              The history of the Scouts is relevant to this discussion, but it seems you will not be satisfied unless it comes with a disclaimer, which I implied above, but here it is restated:

              My entire (15+ years) experience with the Scouts has been positive and they have implemented an exemplary program of safeguards and education to combat child abuse.

          3. and the isolation of camping trips and hikes in which to sniff out potential victims.

            Which is why for years now they have instituted 2 deep leadership on any Scout BSA function. I at least give a nod to the Scouts for tackling this problem head on, unlike certain churches who never instituted any changes, and still pass predator clergy from one Parrish to another. The same can’t be said of Scouts. As recent developments suggest, the Scouts are facing legal penalties which may well bankrupt them in the coming weeks, but for fuck sake they jumped on this when the shit came out head on, but they are a national organization, and unlike the Catholic Church where certain dioceses have selectively filed for bankruptcy, the Scouts are potentially in trouble, and it’s a dam shame.

            1. Relax. The accusation isn’t that the Scouts are an organization of nothing but pedos, the claim is that pedos would be drawn to the organization (or teaching, or sports coaching, or any other job that requires frequent interaction with children.)

    2. “”You wanna legally molest children? Join Child Services.””

      The TSA is also an acceptable answer.

  12. >>>not intended to punish minors for being featured in pornographic materials, but rather, to protect them

    this. and screw Maryland for their “she needs our help” baloney.

  13. “A finding of guilt would be an attack on the autonomy and self-ownership of all young people”

    More like a single example of injustice–IF IF IF and when a jury finds her guilty.

    Innocent people are falsely accused of crimes and prosecuted in a free society. Whether they’re convicted is another matter.

    1. She’s already been convicted. And the conviction upheld on appeal.

      The case has reached the Maryland Supreme Court – where it will be decided if that conviction will be let stand.

      1. I maintain that the failure is with the jury.

        If not even one out of twelve jurors would stand up and say, “This doesn’t pass the stink test”, then I maintain the basic problem is with the jury.

        P.S. The sentence should fit the “crime”, too. If the judge doesn’t have the discretion to give a nothing-burger of a sentence, then that’s also a problem. But when twelve out of twelve jurors can’t tell the difference between a girl taking a picture of herself and a crime, I’m not sure what the state supreme court is supposed to do about that.

        P.P.S. So, this is in Maryland rather than federal court or the Supreme Court of the United States? Then it’s one example of injustice. I believe 49 other states can and should feel free to ignore this verdict–even if it’s one excellent example of injustice.

        1. “This doesn’t pass the stink test”

          Amen Ken!

          Time for some jury nullification around here… The power pigs have intimidated us all, and it is time to stand up and fight! As jurors, I mean… IGNORE those stupid instructions!!! Nod your head agreeably when getting selected, pretend to be a good sheep, and then FUCK those assholes, comes verdict time, and find ANY plausible excuse to use common sense in defining “let the punishment fit the crime”! Else the power pigs will rule the day! They think that the more punishment that they can deal out, w/o limit, the better that they are doing their jobs!

          Fuck ’em to hell and back!

          Sorry, but that’s how I feel!

        2. I agree that this is a perfect case for jury nullification. If the judge had any balls, he would have so instructed the jury.

        3. The jury, sure – the judge also. A judge has the ability to end a prosecution outright. Its not even something that’s argued about like jury nullification is. A judge can issue a ‘not guilty’ finding at any point during a trial.

          1. You don’t even have to talk about jury nullification. The place this prosecution should have ended was the grand jury. “No true bill”.

            She was found guilty of the statute because she apparently is guilty of violating the statute. The question is whether this kind of violation should be prosecuted. (Which, ultimately, means that the Maryland legislature should amend the statute to grant immunity where there’s consent all around and no laws were broken in the creation of the materials in question.

            1. Which is just what my state legislature did last session. It’s possible to write a law to shield unwise teenagers from being treated as child pornographers that still prevents real crimes. The wheel has been invented already.

          2. If the judge did it on his/her own authority just because it was “right” but without a clear rationale in the law, that would be obvious grounds for an appeal. And then you’re depending on the appeals court to also have some sense of right. Basically, the girl has to win multiple times through that route.

            On the other hand, if the jury returns a not guilty verdict even if the result of obvious jury nullification, it’s harder for subsequent judges to overturn.

        4. Except that juries cannot rule on matters of law, only matters of fact. She actually did what they say she did, so the jury has no legal choice except to either convict or nullify, and the number of people who know the about jury nullification is vanishingly small, in my experience. They’re certainly not told about it during jury instructions. She should have requested a judge trial if she wanted to challenge the law. I blame her attorney for that. Note: This is just my opinion and doesn’t constitute legal advice.

          1. “I will instruct you what the law is at the conclusion of the case. If
            selected as a juror, you will take an oath to follow the law. Does
            anyone think you would have trouble following the law even if you
            may disagree with it? ”

            That’s from one court’s standard list of voir dire questions.

            To get on a jury, someone willing to nullify therefore would have to commit perjury.

            (No I do not like this).

            1. I do. The place for jury nullification is grand jury, not petit jury.

          2. “Except that juries cannot rule on matters of law, only matters of fact.”

            A grand jury can return “no true bill”. This can mean “you don’t have enough evidence, Mr. Prosecutor” or “we don’t want you to pursue this”.

        5. I’ve never heard of a jury trial in juvenile court. There does not seem to be any presumption of innocence, either.

  14. There really needs to be a redefinition of sex offender laws. This girl’s life is ruined and she hasn’t harmed anyone or anything. Yet she is now the legal equivalent to an adult who raped an infant.

    1. Probation is no joke, and even if she wasn’t put on the sex offender list, which indeed ruins lives, every job application she fills out will ask whether she’s been convicted of a felony.

      1. Since it was only a juvenile case, she can answer no to that once she’s an adult.

  15. Jeez hasn’t the poor girl been through enough without Reason calling it out for more national humiliation?

    1. Without national coverage – and the state supreme court getting some national outrage feedback giving them an incentive to *pay attention* to this case, then no, she hasn’t suffered enough.

      If the conviction is upheld then her suffering is only starting.

      1. Yeah she is getting a lot of help from the shit slingers on this web page.

        I withdraw my comment. Should have walked away from this.

  16. “The First Amendment to the United States Constitution did not protect conduct of a minor who distributed a digital video file of herself engaged as a subject in consensual sexual conduct,”

    To the contrary, the only reason non-obscene child porn has been considered not to be protected by the 1st Amendment is that it’s deemed non-consensual sexual conduct.

    1. No, there’s also the claim that creation of child porn of any kind produces a market for such porn, and people who can’t find willing subjects turn to unwilling. (This theory is based on the notion that people unable to legally buy child porn will obtain it illegally, and one of the ways to obtain it illegally is to trade on the Internet with someone who has some. But if you have none to trade, and you need to get some to trade for more, what to do, what to do…)
      It’s why “distribution” of child porn was redefined to include things other than selling it for money. The FBI kept finding people who were trading rather than buying and selling, and not being able to charge them under statutes that required money to change hands.

  17. Seriously, remember the history of child porn jurisprudence? It wasn’t long ago that every jurisdiction (in the USA and elsewhere) tried to make all porn illegal, but the courts in the USA — chiefly the US Supreme Court — then started applying free speech protections to porn, limiting the application of the laws to that which was obscene. Child porn was no exception, but hardly anybody had even heard of child porn then. So for a number of years, until child porn became a public “thing”, non-obscene child porn was as legal as any other non-obscene porn.

    Then child porn came to public attention, there was an outcry, and statutes were made against it. It was decided in court that, along with obscene material, child porn could be made illegal because its production constituted child sexual abuse. By the definitions in the statutes, they then tried to enforce them against “virtual child porn”, but their application in those cases was overturned because no actual children were used — except in cases where images of children’s faces were pasted up on adult porn models, in which cases the laws could be applied. So the recognition was there then that child porn’s absence of constitutional protection was not a matter of its mere content, but its victimization.

    How can the jurisprudence on this issue not also mandate an exception for self-produced child porn as exists for virtual child porn? Especially (but not only) in this case, where the act being recorded has been determined by the state to not be illegal victimization even if produced by someone else? In other words, the state recognizes the person’s right to consent to the activity, and the consent was presumed, so it couldn’t be child abuse even if the boy friend recorded it.

    1. I just see two points here.

      1) The law is the law. It was written and enacted by duly elected representatives of the citizens. If the citizenry’s views on the law have changed, they can press their representatives to change it. Ignoring the laws that folks don’t like is exactly what has created a nationwide cluster F of unequal application of laws, as well as allowing legislators to duck their responsibilities. Prosecutors can exercise discretion in choosing to pursue a conviction or not, but a general stance of “we don’t like the law, so let’s just ignore it” is not a sustainable position in the long run.

      2) The fly in the ointment for all of this is the distribution of the material. While personal opinions may say “other 15 or 16 year olds aren’t harmed by receiving this content” it is just that, a personal opinion. The recipients i doubt were asked “hey, you want to see a vid of me blowing this guy?”. The recipients themselves are minors, and while they personally may not care, their parents on the other hand may have issues with it as is their clear legal and moral rights. Dollars to donuts, had it been distributed to legal adults, nothing probably would have come of it.

      Yes, teens these days do stupid stuff, and they’re doing more of it at earlier ages than before. As much as some quarters would like to say those teens are free to do what they want with their bodies regardless of their parents’ views, we still live in a society that barring emancipation has made minors the legal wards of their parents and subject to THEIR rules, opinions, beliefs, etc. If some parents don’t want their children viewing pornography, especially pornography of other minors, that is their right. The fact that some of the recipients are the ones who reported it to the School Resource Officer is pretty evident that someone had a problem with it. That is the injury that predicates the reporting of the crime (and it is a crime by the terms of the law, regardless whether people like the law). Everything else is just noise. The fact that the person is not facing the full allowable punishment under the law, isn’t having to register as a sex offender, and every indication is that the punishment was limited to some pretty mild options, is a pretty strong indicator that it was more about reinforcing the seriousness of the actions over simply punishing to the full extent of the law.

      1. It does not always turn out that well. North of where I live, a guy well into his teens got a boob shot from his girlfriend. I lost track of the case, but last I heard the prosecutor was offering a plea deal with a one year sentence and sex offender registration, and the teenager was already in lockup.

        The law’s been fixed since.

      2. “The fact that some of the recipients are the ones who reported it to the School Resource Officer is pretty evident that someone had a problem with it.”

        No, you’re making an assumption. The evidence doesn’t support the conclusion. It doesn’t disprove it, either, but it doesn’t prove what you think it does.

  18. …the state believes that the respondent is in need of some guidance, rehabilitation for something deeper” and “is just trying to help her.

    Bull fucking shit. That is absolutely not what this is about. They know teens have been having sex since the dawn of sex and have survived just fine. Prosecutors can’t let slip through their fingers any possible charge and certainly not a kind of such prurient interest.

  19. S.K. was the only person charged in connection with the alleged crime.

    Why have the “two close friends and fellow students, who later reported her” not been charged with possession of child pornography? The system is broken!

    1. I don’t know about Maryland’s, but the federal child porn law has a “report it to legal authorities and you don’t get charged” exception built-in to it.

      1. According to an admin at a hosting firm that I heard from on Slashdot, it may not work that way in practice. The hosting firm found customers storing child porn. They reported it. The authorities threatened to prosecute the hosting firm for having it. Now they just delete it without telling anyone, leaving child abusers free to seek more victims.

        1. Either you talked to someone who didn’t know what they were talking about, or you didn’t understand what they told you. Just deleting it without notifying authorities doesn’t trigger the safe harbor. You do not want to be without the safe harbor protection.

  20. It is draconian to charge a 16-year-old girl with trafficking in child pornography because she willingly filmed herself performing oral sex.

    It seems strange the male is never considered. Why is he irrelevant? Are we just accepting that laws are written without gender but will only be applied to males?

    1. The male is never considered? Look at all the young boys tried and convicted, now life long sex offenders, because some young lady sent them a semi-nude picture on their phone! While I disagree with both, if you charge a young man, then a young women gets charged too. Hopefully this case ends the stupidity totally.

      1. Agree on that. In this case, though, there was no possession of child pornography statute in play. The charges were based on distribution, which presumably is be how Maryland law is written (it IS different in every state, and that’s generally a good thing).

        I am perplexed about why the “two close friends and classmates” were not charged, though. I am guessing that they did not forward the pictures to anyone. Probably the reason they went to the resource officer was that they were subject to social media / electronic communication rules at schools that could have gotten them expelled for simply receiving those images, even outside of school.

        Read closely the kinds of “contracts” the public schools make parents sign today. They are patently unconscionable and undermine many of the students’ fundamental rights. They were written in a one sided negotiation between the school administration and their own lawyers, in a “how much can we get away with” manner. If you raise an objection, even to the people in charge, you will be told it is “non-negotiable”. Well, then it’s not a contract. To the extent a public school is required by law to educate kids, they are doing an end run around those kids’ rights.

        1. “Read closely the kinds of ‘contracts’ the public schools make parents sign today.”

          My kid’s a graduate student, so, high school ended 6 years ago. No “contracts” of any kind back then, and underage sexting was a thing back then, too.

    2. It doesn’t seem strange at all.

      The crime is recording sex acts involving minors. If he didn’t record any sex acts involving minors, you wouldn’t consider charging him for doing that.

      1. I don’t mean he should be charged, I mean he is a victim. So why does the framing assert she cannot be a criminal because a victim does not exist?

        Reverse the genders and would anyone be saying a male should not be charged for making a video of himself as if the girl did not exist? In fact the existent laws cover exactly this scenario.

        1. Maybe he is over 18.
          And I don’t think the law requires there to be a victim. Distribution is enough.

          1. I don’t think the law requires there to be a victim.

            True, it’s the defenses people are offering against the law which ignore the existence of the male.

            Maybe he is over 18.

            From the case it’s clear they don’t even know who he is.

            “The appellant, then-16-year-old S.K., sent a text message to two friends, both juveniles, containing an approximately one-minute-long digital video file of herself performing fellatio on a presumably-adult male. ”

            The “presumably” is not because it was established or believed but because it is irrelevant to the law.

            1. If he was a victim of the crime, he’s chosen not to come forward to accuse the defendant.

              This doesn’t prove he’s not a victim, but it’s not unreasonable to assume that to be the case until information that suggests otherwise is offered.

  21. […] S.K. a distribuit clipul video, în care îi face sex oral unui bărbat neidentificat, către doi prieteni şi colegi de la şcoală, care au pârât-o apoi la conducerea şcolii, scrie reason.com. […]

  22. So, if I enter my own house, take an item such as my TV out of it and then sell it to someone from Craigslist, I’m guilty of burglary, theft, and trafficking in stolen goods?

    It’s amazing that these dingbats don’t consider more self-directed behavior as crimes. I bet they are itching to bring sexual assault charges against all the women who routinely perform monthly breast self-exams.

    1. Beautiful. How about the cyber crime of forgetting your password, or the election-meddling crime of changing your political party?

    2. Only if the lawmakers were really lazy about the statutes.

      On the other hand, the type of situation you cite does frequently exist for more obscure crimes, as well as ones that depend on a fictional victim or “social harm” as the victim.

      This only becomes an issue when you are dealing with a generation of rule-sycophants who have been conditioned from an early age that they new Holy Book is the rules and procedures manual, and any deviation from that Book is going to lead to BAD THINGS (i.e., you can be summarily expelled, boss can use a pretext to fire you “for cause” even though you are model employee, etc.)

    3. Children’s bodies don’t belong to them though.
      They generally belong to their parents when the government hasn’t asserted ownership.
      For example, a parent cannot force (or allow) a child to engage in child pornography. The child’s body in that context belongs to the government. The government makes the decisions of what is appropriate use of that property in that case.
      So its more like you broke into a government office building and stole their TVs and sold it to someone on Craigslist. Yes, burglary, theft, trafficking stolen goods.

      1. “They generally belong to their parents when the government hasn’t asserted ownership.”

        We settled the question of whether one person could own another person back in 1865-66.

    4. Or all the teenage males who sexually stimulated themselves.

  23. “…with two ‘close friends and fellow students,’ who later reported her to the school resource officer.”

    My only question is do you call them dicks, bitches, or pussies?

  24. “The state, on the other hand, has asserted that S.K. needs guidance, and that probation and a mandatory mental health evaluation were reasonable outcomes”

    Was this plagiarized from Orwell?

    1. If you were the parent of this girl, would you send her for a mental health evaluation?

      I suppose IMHO it would depend on how much money was available. if I could afford a well-heeled, highly professional, and discreet Lexington Avenue psychiatrist, I would most certainly do so. On the other hand, entrusting my child to a DCFS head-shrinker with a political agenda and a general antipathy toward parental rights would be the last thing I would want — I would send the kid to military school first!

      1. Psychologists who have studied the issue have found that even minors can have healthy attitudes about sex and sexting. So it may be the case that you could send your kid to a shrink and they say psychologically nothing wrong with them.
        What you have is a legal problem, not a psychological problem. Laws are not based on what the conduct the individual is engaged in, they are based on what conduct society will permit. Like, there is nothing psychologically wrong with an person who bares their chest. Indeed, men do it all the time. But if a woman does it, then its illegal. It has no bearing on her psychological state, its just that society chooses not to permit it.
        And yeah, I agree that a DCFS head-shrinker will generally assume that breaking the law = psychological problem.

    2. When you commit a crime, as this girl did, you lose your rights.
      This is actually a 13th Amendment issue. The 13th Amendment which banned slavery roughly defined as forcing someone to participate in a specific act through coercion, left an exception for when people have broken the law.
      If she had not broken the law, then, no, the state could not compel her to take this action through coercion.
      But since she did break the law, they can more or less force her to do whatever they tell her to as long as its not cruel or unusual. Same goes for any criminal.

  25. If you read the entire account, it doesn’t sound like the state was heavy handed in this case at all.

    The heavy handedness occurred when the school district was able to require her parents to sign a “contract” agreeing that she could be expelled without due process for her social media activities outside of school.

    If you don’t think this girl was headed for a lifetime of low self-esteem and sexual exploitation in one capacity or another, you don’t know how sex traffickers operate. Sadly, though, she may still be headed for that fate, are the government’s propensity to help in cases like this usually consist of a low pay social worker with a staggering case load who is empowered to do nothing but thump the rules and procedures manual. Some faith based intervention groups appear to have better results, but for every good faith based story, there seem to be 10 that are being exposed where the religious stewards abused their positions of power and authority over young people.

    1. “If you don’t think this girl was headed for a lifetime of low self-esteem and sexual exploitation in one capacity or another, you don’t know how sex traffickers operate. ”

      Since true sex traffickers are next to non existent, I doubt you know much of their methods either.

      1. Pimps don’t exist? That IS news that will come as a surprise to many.

  26. By the time I was 13-14 years old, I knew kids that treated sex very casually. If it was legal, I could absolutely see them putting photos and videos of themselves on the internet.
    And that’s without any exploitation at all. I could see a scenario where, an older person says, hey, I will “accept” 50% of the income generated by your paywall website that I will “manage” for “you” to distribute “your” pornography on.
    There are lots of minors who would actually probably do that without any coercion or coaxing at all. People who become strippers on the day they turn 18 didn’t suddenly have an epiphany on that date. Hard as it is to acknowledge, people probably have the capacity to make decisions about what they want to do with their bodies in regards to sex long before that.
    But the question is, what do we as a society want to accept? The answer is, 18. You have to be 18.

    1. But the brain is only fully developed until 21 to 25 y.o. so anyone younger is dangerously immature and a danger to self and others.

    2. “But the question is, what do we as a society want to accept? The answer is, 18. You have to be 18.”

      Meh. If you don’t want to look at the 16-year-old girls’ website, don’t. Problem solved, using 0% public resources.

  27. Get the best Delhi girls over DelhiPetals agency site.

  28. This would make her the perpetrator as well as the victim? We really need a meteor.

  29. A 16 year old girl making a video of her blowing a dude and sending it to friends is an incredibly stupid idea. Unbelievably stupid.

    Stupid ideas, however, aren’t necessarily illegal.

    …but she should also not be able to whine about bullying when the video is used by others to mock her. Because, rest assured, everybody she knows likely has seen it.

    1. “she should also not be able to whine about bullying when the video is used by others to mock her. Because, rest assured, everybody she knows likely has seen it.”

      And, after all, she IS the only 16-year-old girl to ever blow a guy.

    2. but she should also not be able to whine about bullying when the video is used by others to mock her.

      But she will whine about it….and 10yrs from now…that video will still be bouncing around the net ! #Thenetisforever……

  30. From a purely legal standpoint, how can a person be both the victim of a crime and the perpetrator at the same time? After all, when someone attempts suicide, we don’t charge them with attempted murder.

    1. We should charge them with 1st degree murder, due to the whole pre-planning aspect.

      Then sentence them to death…

      1. Death by stoning seems appropriate, to add that nostalgic feel to it, don’t you think?

    2. “After all, when someone attempts suicide, we don’t charge them with attempted murder.”

      Suicide has been decriminalized in every State of the Union, except maybe Maryland, where suicide is still a state common law crime.

      22 Feb 2018 Caroline County MD convicted a man on a felony charge of attempted suicide in order to render him legally prohibited from buying/owning a gun. It is highly unlikely that anyone else will be prosecuted for attempted suicide in Maryland. While State’s Attorney Joseph Riley publicly defended the commissioners’ decision to charge the man, Riley asked commissioners to refrain from using the charge in future cases.

  31. Throw the book at her….then execute her parents in front of her.

  32. We clearly cannot have a sixteen year old girl making decisions about her own sexuality in the United States…

    1. Well, so long as they’re going to make decisions that stupid, seems like no, no right to make them

      1. You have no right to make any decisions.

  33. […] A 16-Year-Old Girl Is Facing Child Porn Charges for Making Sex Video of Herself 3 by Vaslo | 0 comments on Hacker News. […]

  34. […] A 16-Year-Old Girl Is Facing Child Porn Charges for Making Sex Video of Herself 3 by Vaslo | 0 comments on Hacker News. […]

  35. Barring more radical changes to existing law, many ideas of which would be reasonable, there should at least be a carve out for those under 18 being charged with this stuff… Perhaps don’t make it a non crime, but make it mandatory no more than a slap on the wrist, with no sex offender registry etc. In other words make it bad enough that a teen won’t want to get in trouble for it, but not so bad it ruins their life.

  36. And somehow it’s okay for the cops to look at a 16-year-old’s phone.

  37. Yes, this is all manner of f’d up, all because people become hysterical about sex. They literally lose their f’ing minds. Most people consider “sex offenders” worse than murderers and any victim is ” a survivor” scarred for life. If you suggest anything else, then you become the target. It’s crazy.

    Teenagers shouldn’t be making sex videos. But they shouldn’t have their lives ruined over it. That’s insane.

    1. Yeah, for example, this idiot so “lost her mind” that she made a video of her giving a guy a blow job, and distributed the video.

      Which is why we have laws about 16 year olds and sex, because they’re clearly too stupid to make the decisions for themselves

      1. “Which is why we have laws about 16 year olds and sex, because they’re clearly too stupid to make the decisions for themselves”

        Genius, in the state where she lived at the time, the law about 16-year-olds and sex is “OK, fine”.

        1. Genius, the country in which she lives in has laws about making videos of 16 year olds having sex. The rule is “don’t do it.”

          1. How brilliant! So Jews in Christian National Socialist Germany likewise needed only refrain from owning guns to steer clear of the Kristallnacht laws, Q.E.D.

          2. “Genius, the country in which she lives in has laws about making videos of 16 year olds having sex. The rule is ‘don’t do it.'”

            Which would be relevant if she was in a federal court facing federal charges related to making videos of 16-year-olds having sex. But that’s not what’s happening, so you’re ranting without purpose. Does it make you feel better about yourself?

  38. At least she wasn’t charged as an adult for something that was a crime only because she wasn’t an adult. This was a juvenile court case, so she won’t go on the sex offender registry, and it’s unlikely that she’ll serve time in jail or have her education seriously disrupted. But I think you’ll find other cases where underage sexting has lead to being charged as an adult, with penalties similar to baby-rapers.

  39. “A finding of guilt would be an attack on the autonomy and self-ownership of all young people”

    They are children. Which means they are not legal adults. Which means they don’t HAVE “autonomy and self-ownership”.

    That’s the freaking POINT of “child” vs “adult”.

    Do you have to be stupid to write for Reason? Or is it just considered a plus factor?

    1. “They are children. Which means they are not legal adults.”

      Except… not true.

      “Do you have to be stupid to write for Reason?”

      It is apparently a requirement for writing angry comments for Reason.

      1. Really? She’s a legal adult? She’s emancipated, fully self supporting, not living on handouts from anyone?

        Do tell!

        1. ““Do you have to be stupid to write [comments] for Reason?”

          Thanks for confirming.

  40. An attack on the autonomy and self-ownership of all young people.”
    I’m sorry but you can’t have it both ways. Either she’s old enough to self-manage her autonomy as suggested by this assertion, which by necessity includes following the laws generally, including those against manufacturing and distributing child pornography, even of herself, or she’s not. Let’s assume that she does not face any legal consequence; since we must apply the law equally, all minors (of any age) can now film themselves, singularly or in groups for that matter, distribute the material, and even arguably be paid for it, yet suffer no legal consequence. Imagine the likely result; minors encouraged by predatory adults to “go ahead and film yourself and post it to this site; I can’t help you, but don’t worry, you can’t be prosecuted.instant approval blog commenting sites list – online income

    1. “I’m sorry but you can’t have it both ways. Either she’s old enough to self-manage her autonomy as suggested by this assertion, which by necessity includes following the laws generally, including those against manufacturing and distributing child pornography, even of herself,”

      If she’s old enough to manage her own autonomy, then pictures of her aren’t “child pornography”, and your argument falls apart.

      Consider our old friend the first amendment. You have to be kind of special to read “Congress shall make no law…” as allowing Congress to make some laws, which is the current state. Congress has made laws outlawing depictions of minors nude and/or engaging in sexual contact.
      The justification for this is that since minors can’t lawfully decide to have sexual contact, any image that shows them doing so is an image of criminal activity. When this is not the case, and nothing about the actual sex depicted is illegal… the depiction is still illegal, because… reasons.

  41. That teens shouldn’t send sexy videos to each other because they are bound to get out, cause embarrassment, and raise legal issues.
    Download Apollo TV Apk

  42. Great! Now the antiabortion and Antisex League sockpuppets will be trying to get Robbie kicked out of YAF for failing to demand that the age of whatchamacallit be raised to twenty-five. The folks pestering this youngster are engaging in molestation (see a real dictionary), and would–U.S. bullying aside–be liable to arrest in the Philippine Islands, Japan, Germany, France, and possibly the UK.

  43. She’ll be put on a list saying she can’t live within a mile of herself.

  44. […] “Attack[ing] the autonomy and self-ownership of all young people” is exactly what this w…: […]

  45. The real issue is how in our society children as well as adults lack any self respect or modesty. I am not being a prude, but when you have women whose only claim to fame is having sex on video and then distributing it globally, there is something wrong in society. Leftists freak out about school shootings but never ask themselves why do boys think the only recourse for their frustration is to kill other students and themselves? In addition, they never why do girls think they have to film and distribute themselves having sex to feel they have value? Think about it.

    1. ” when you have women whose only claim to fame is having sex on video and then distributing it globally, there is something wrong in society.”

      Reframing for a different perspective:
      There isn’t anybody famous for having sex on video and then distributing it globally. There ARE people famous for having global demand for video of them having sex.

  46. Sex becoming more common these days

  47. How about they convict her for being a FUCKIN’ MORON !?!?!?!?!?!!!

    Are kids really this dumb ??????? WTF??????????

  48. You degenerate libertine fools think this sort of base immorality is fine, and that there’s no danger here? How many people have downloaded this MINOR’S video and wildly and compulsively masturbated to it? That is, by definition, “distribution of child pornography.” Every pervert that watched the video should be shot, and for each view, she should serve a year at hard labor. We should also strongly consider banning cell phones. Finally, short of banning the Internet in its entirety, we need rigid censorship of the Internet, itself. A coalition of government and religious groups should be able to acheive the desired results in short order!

  49. It makes no difference who is depicted in the video. One person distributed child pornography to other persons. Child pornography is contraband. The recipients of the child pornography had no legal right to view it.

  50. The author seems to have entirely missed the point of our legal system’s involvement in the case. There is nothing “heavy handed” about enforcing valid laws. Child pornography was published. Obviously. S.K’s parents, teachers and school administrators have already failed to impress upon her “That teens shouldn’t send sexy videos to each other…”

  51. This is the sad truth for children Epoxy Garage Floor Coating.

Please to post comments