Fifteen-Year-Old Student Charged with Child Pornography in Sending Pictures to Friends — Of Herself

Now, this is a new one. prosecutors in Newark Licking Valley, Ohio have charged a 15-year-old of sending child pornography to friends at a high school. However, the cell phone pictures are of herself. The illegal use of minor referenced in the charge is herself.

The girl has entered a denial juvenile charges of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material and possession of criminal tools. She is the minor being misused by herself. This seems a lot like charging an attempted suicide as an attempted murder.

She may have to register as a sex offender, though it is unclear whether (as both the victim and the culprit) she would get victim notification reports about herself.

For the full story, click here.

15 thoughts on “Fifteen-Year-Old Student Charged with Child Pornography in Sending Pictures to Friends — Of Herself

  1. The charges in this case do seem strange and abusive. I guess in this jurisdiction you could be charged with sex crimes if you are caught masturbating. I am not sure that the reporter has the facts straight on the law in question. I find it disturbing that if a girl in my class sends me a picture of herself, sans clothes, how am I guilty of anything? If I asked for the picture, maybe, but if the girl sends the picture without being asked to, it seems crazy that the state could charge the owner of the receiving phone.

  2. I am willing to bet this girl is a victim of sexual abuse (incest?). It says she was in foster care, what for? This is a classic act of a young person who has been sexually abused. She also plead quilty after being incarcerated, during which she was probably terrified.

    Arrest and jail time should be the last thing on the authorities “to do” list. This case calls for a sensitive and well qualified social worker to speak with this girl and ask her what she has been through, if there is something occurring now in her life that might account for this behavior.

    This girl is a victim not a criminal. She has already had a difficult life. These actions won’t help her recover and reach any kind of good life. They will set her back so far it may be impossible for her to do anything but sink further into a black hell hole. I hope this case will immediately be reevaluated in light of well-document effects of sexual abuse on minors.

  3. The issue here is the Newark “Licking” Valley prosecutors office has lost their minds.

    Children have been “playing doctor” for as long as theres been children and the concept of doctors. Under this ridiculous interpretation of the law those children would likewise be guilty of child molestation, even though THEY’RE the child(s).

    There is a case of Child Abuse here, and its coming from the “Licking” Valley’s prosecutors office.

    They are abusing this young girl with this idiotic ignorance that children taking pictures of themselves constitutes “kiddy porn”.

    The prosecutor should be charged with child abuse, child endangerment (he’s endangering her future reputation and freedom) and the Newark “Licking” Valley should be forced to change its name.

  4. jill, you’re retarded. just because she sent the pics doesn’t even remotely hint that she might have been sexually abused. stop trying to impress yourself with your analysis. your entire comment is full of assumptions about her when, in fact, you know nothing about her. she did nothing wrong. stop passing laws that criminally punish children just for being children. it sounds like you and the other adults are the sick deviants in this case.

  5. While I agree the concept of child abuse is purely speculative, and probably overreaching, what exactly did Jill say that merits her being called a “sick deviant”?

    She said the girl was suffering and should not be punished.

    How exactly does that translate to a “sick deviant”?

  6. CMM,

    “Children have been “playing doctor” for as long as theres been children and the concept of doctors.”

    Okay, what are the statues of limitations on playing doctor?

    I knew a kid–cough! Um–who played doctor when he was 5-years-old way back in the early 1950s. I, er, he wants to know if he committed a crime of passion. He said the event was still clear in his mind, but only because he has an exceptional memory.

    Do remembrances afterthought count toward culpability as much as intent aforethought in this ‘case’. I swear, or rather affirm, that my 6-year-old ‘playmate’ suggested the activity (he said/she said evidence). After all, she was older than me.

    Waiting with bated breath for some ‘free’ pro bono legal advice….

  7. Well first, pro bono means its free, so you don’t need both in the same sentence.

    Second, if you’re waiting for some free legal advice from me, I’m not an attorney, nor have I ever attended so much as one day of Law School, so you will need to seek elsewhere on that.

    And third, based on what you just said, wouldn’t free advice from someone in the psychiatric field be more beneficial at this time?

    Ounce of prevention, you know?

  8. CMM,

    Pro bono does not translate to “free” and you will note that I placed ” around the word ‘free’. It is abbreviated Latin for Pro bono publico meaning “for the public good” The services of a lawyer are volunteered but not necessarily “free.” However, I will let the lawyers determine that for themselves.

    I know for your posts that you obviously have no legal background and I was only responding with sarcasm to the premise of your statement and that is why I quoted what you said.

    You can bet that I will never make the mistake of responding to you in the future.

  9. I am fully aware of the origins of the term having studied Latin at a young age (religious context). When referring to legal service and the term, “pro bono”, it does mean the work is free. It is offered “for the public good” hence “volunteered” and volunteering doesn’t mean being paid (by the client). The state of course compensates attorney’s for “pro bono” work.

    As for the issue of sarcasm, I understood your post was sarcasm (albeit somewhat disturbing), which is why I responded sarcasticlly.

  10. Former Federal LEO
    1, October 9, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    I know for your posts that you obviously have no legal background

    I wouldn’t bet your retirement funds on that.


    2] Paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) recognize the critical need for legal services that exists among persons of limited means by providing that a substantial majority of the legal services rendered annually to the disadvantaged be furnished without fee or expectation of fee.

    American Bar Association

  12. Based on Ohio’s interpretation, it appears I’ve been guilty of sexual battery against myself since I was like, fourteen.

Comments are closed.