14-year-old sends her crush an explicit snap – and now faces child porn charges
Teenagers sext.
That’s generally what research has determined – it happens, it’s not uncommon.
One study found more than half of its respondents sent explicit messages while under 18 years old; and 28 percent included a photo.
But a Minnesota 14-year-old who Snapped an explicit selfie to a boy at her school could be forced to register as a sex offender because of criminal charges filed against her, the ACLU of Minnesota said.
What happened
The girl (not identified because she’s a minor) goes to school in Rice County. She had a crush on a classmate, sent him an explicit snap – and he shared it with others.
According to the ACLU, the girl has now been charged with distributing child porn based on these state statutes.
“I’m not a criminal for taking a selfie,” the teen said in the ACLU’s news release. “Sexting is common among teens at my school, and we shouldn’t face charges for doing it. I don’t want anyone else to go through what I’m going through.”
It’s a felony that carries a punishment of up to seven years in prison, up to a $10,000 fine, and potentially having to register as a sex offender for 10 years after the case is over – even if she pleads to a lesser criminal charge.
If the case goes forward and she’s found guilty, it could have a crippling effect on “her entire future — her housing, college, employment, and more,” the ACLU argued.
It’s an ‘absurd interpretation’ of the law
The advocacy group filed a brief on her behalf, saying the charges should be dropped because it’s an “absurd interpretation” of state law.
The ACLU points out the statute is specifically meant to protect minors from the possible damage caused by child porn – and in this case, the teenager sent it voluntarily. It was her choice to send an image of her body to one person.
“To suggest that a juvenile who sends a sexually explicit selfie is a victim of her own act of child pornography is illogical,” Teresa Nelson, legal director of the ACLU of Minnesota, said in a statement. “Child pornography laws are supposed to protect minors from predators, and Jane Doe is not a predator.”
Rice County Attorney John Fossum confirmed the existence of the case to MPR, but couldn’t comment because the case involves a minor.
According to the ACLU, the case could go to trial this winter if the charges aren’t dropped.
Said the girl’s father in the ACLU’s release: “What my daughter went through at school with the other students was really rough, and when we found out she was also facing criminal charges my first thought was, ‘Why are we victimizing the victim?’”
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Karen’s comment is right on the money! Ben Franklin(that old 18th century SO-and founding father) warned us about ALL this when he told his colleagues and confreres just before he died..
“Well, you have your republic, if you can keep it. But remember this: A society willing to trade civil liberties for security will ultimately retain neither, nor will it deserve to.”
Our society was founded on the principle that individual rights were to be PARAMOUNT in these United States of America, something not really achieved (at least officially, but still not really achieved) until the Civil War.
How can they charge a 14 year old for this, when a 14 year old can’t consent sexual relations because their brains are too immature?
Please don’t muddy the waters of sex offences by trying to use logical rational thought. The whole thing come crashing down like a house of cards when you do that!
We are Americans damit – we avoid logic and reality at all costs!
In this situation. I have one thing to say about her actions. Was she aware that her text become a private conversation between her self and her crush? If this was not freedom of expression. Please then why is not the boy who received the text facing a possible problem with receiving the text then distributing it to others. Not to inflate this to a suggestion but to deflate an already miscarriage of justice. She is as innocent to her decision as what they have concluded to the boy who received and broadcasted the message from her.
While I agree it is totally absurd that this young lady is charged for this crime, I have to ask one simple question: Why is the boyfriend not being charged with distribution of CP after sending the image to several friends, as this article indicates? Just a curiosity here.