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.
My case involved possessing a photo of a girl that was close enough in age that we were legal to have sexual relations but possessing a photo of her (at age 17) made me guilty of possessing child pornography and they charged her too. Said if I took the plea her pornographer charges would go away.
In a way, I hope this goes all the way to SCOTUS. This same “perversion” of these laws has been used in FL as well as other states. When you look at the way this law was used and apply it to other crimes you see the not only the absurdity but also the double standard mind-set because it is something involving sex. For instance, suppose this girl was given a very expensive brand new Lexus for Christmas – and then on New Year’s she decided to just give it away. Did she steal from herself? Or supposed she was locked out of her home and picked the lock to get in – did she commit burglary against herself?
There are many laws regarding sex offenses that have this same type of absurdity to them. For instance, the possession of child porn. First of all, by design it is called child porn, in order to provoke a visceral knee jerk reaction in people but it includes any sexual images of people under the age of 18. Possession of child porn is a crime because it is based on the understanding that in order for the images to be created someone had to have abused the underage person (but it was not the possessor). The premise is that the viewer or possessor is re-victimizing the child by viewing the images and also that the viewer or possessor is going to escalate to molestation. Ok, most people are willing to accept that and possessors of child pornography are punished (in many states including FL) with the same severity as the creator of the image. However, when you apply that same ideal to other crimes the absurdity of it becomes clear. For instance, if you view images of a murder (just watch the ID channel!) are you guilty of that murder also? Is it going to lead you to become a murderer? If you rubberneck a horrible car accident caused by drunk driving does that make you guilty of drunk driving? Is it going to cause you to stop at a bar and get drunk so you can drive home impaired? Most people would scoff at these assertions as ridiculous and yet they accept the same type of logical fallacy when it comes to sexual crimes.
Karen, I agree that there is an ongoing war on sex in America. Luckily though, Floriduh law does make a distinction between producing/promoting and possessing child porn:
827.071
(2) A person is guilty of the use of a child in a sexual performance
(3) A person is guilty of promoting a sexual performance by a child
(4) It is unlawful for any person to possess with the intent to promote ….is guilty of a felony of the second degree
(5)(a) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, control, or intentionally view ….A person who violates this subsection commits a felony of the third degree
However due to the state of Florida not using a Tier system the punishment is still the same, LIFE.
JZ – yes, in the statutes they make a distinction – but the punishment is the same – lifetime on the registry.
JZ, Sadly Florida and Texas, while having possession and promotion as separate charges, is actually causing more charges and convictions available by separating them. For example, if you have a photo on a thumb drive, that is stored in a closet, you would be charged with possession only. But if you had that same thumb drive connected to your computer, or the photos were on your hard drive, they could charge you with possession AND promotion, simply because the images are available to be transferred via internet connection. “Possession with the intent to promote” can simply be having the images on a computer or cell phone that has internet connection. That is all that is required. I know this because those were my charges: possession and promotion. So instead of a SINGLE charge like in most states, I had two separate charges. So having them separate in NOT actually a good thing at all.
They told me 10 years too. Then allowed to retroactive that to life.
Nuts
According to the ACLU, on February 20, 2018, Judge John Cajacob dismissed charges against the girl.
Now THIS is the sort of discourse I come here for.
I think the time has come to discuss banning access to cameras to all children under the age of 18. They obviously cannot be trusted. Please write your legislator and ask for them to author the bill that will take these implements of destruction away from our kids.
The laws are out of control, this matter should be handled by parents not law enforcement.
If I was a kid these days with a camera in my smartphone I would certainly send nude photos to my boyfriend/girlfriend without giving it a second thought. It’s self expression first of all and why should that be illegal. Secondly but most importantly is that it is perfectly NORMAL behavior that we have only recently legislated into a crime!
We came thank the conservative christians running this country with their “In god we trust” BS everywhere. I say they have a right to send photos of themselves to whomever they please. I disagree with those laws as they are being apply to juveniles such as these.