Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Feministartfeministartfeminist... | Reading Tonight »

Friday, October 10, 2008


posted by on October 10 at 10:04 AM


ABC News reports on the 15-year-old girl facing kiddie-porn charges after allegedly sending nude photos of herself to classmates:

A 15-year-old Ohio girl faces felony charges and may have to register as a sex offender for allegedly taking nude photos of herself and sending them to her high school classmates. The girl, whose name has not been released, was arrested last week and charged in juvenile court with possessing criminal tools and the illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, said Licking County, Ohio, prosecutor Ken Oswalt.
If convicted, the girl could face a sentence of anywhere from probation to several years in a juvenile detention center. A judge also has the discretion to make the girl register as a sex offender under Ohio law. Oswalt said other teens who received the photographs, which are considered child pornography under state law, may also be charged.

Poor stupid kid.

RSS icon Comments


Licking Valley High School?

Posted by kid icarus | October 10, 2008 10:11 AM

Pics or it didn't happen...

Posted by Chris | October 10, 2008 10:16 AM

Uh, yeah.

So, anyone else think that sex offender laws need retooling? Eventually there will be so many people like this, who hurt nobody, mixed in with the violent rapists and child molesters, that we'll stop taking the designation seriously.

The girl should have her record totally expunged when she turns 18, so she can have a life.

Posted by Fnarf | October 10, 2008 10:17 AM

God, that's dumb. There's a part of the legal framework that distinguishes between under-age and of-age subjects/victims, but not between under-age & of-age creators/perpatrators?

And being considered a sex-offender for taking pictures of *yourself* ("illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material") is just so weird it makes my head spin.

Posted by SeattleExile | October 10, 2008 10:19 AM

Even worse, the kids she sent the photos to may be charged - basically for the crime of having someone send them underage nude photos. If they're convicted, it won't be because they did anything wrong, but rather that they didn't do a quick enough and thorough enough job of erasing the photos before the cops arrived.

Posted by Greg | October 10, 2008 10:20 AM

So can any underage girl who has a camera and breasts be charged with having "criminal tools?" And you can be charged with receiving unsolicited kiddie porn messages?!?! Anyone have McCain's cell phone numbe...never mind, I think he still only communicates via Pony Express.

Posted by Banna | October 10, 2008 10:21 AM

These laws are so incredibly fucking stupid.

Remember that teenager (in Georgia?) who went to jail for having consensual oral sex with his girlfriend?

It makes me so mad..

Posted by sepiolida | October 10, 2008 10:24 AM

Between the terror watch list and the sex-offender list, nobody needs to be left out of the totalitarian party!

As Stalin said:
Everyone is guilty of -something-

Posted by Karlheinz Arschbomber | October 10, 2008 10:31 AM

If this is "The" example, the one and only "pic" on display...

then OHIO is in for a world of fundementAl change.... change right here in good old fashioned "freaked danced" out America....

Lolita she ain't.... until the NabaKOV is hit by this sign on the

Koolhaas 5th avenue 3rd floor window sticker almost behind the drop off slot for the book return red in Seattle....

NSA.... can you say preeetty for the satellite picture please????

....and mind you freedom of speech and privacy advocates and mothers against NSA SPYING HEADLINES IN THE NEWSPAPER...

this stickers message is in ALL CAPS...

( that TERM... ALL CAPS being defined as meaning 'capitalization of the letters used in spelling the message')




Here's a question... what does this slog pic have to do with this entry and comment on the slog?

Well, if... and mind you that's a big if...

you were to take the time to look up the definition in the Random House 2nd edition Dicitonary in the Freemont Seattle Public Library Systems referance dictionary on the table towards the west end of the library...

you would find the word slog defined inside that tome.

Is tome the correct usage of description?

That would depend if... and mind you it's a big if... you were anticipating going to the SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON STATE OR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, and had to spend all your time wasting away at an hour and a half a shot inspiring readers of a little looked at space to encourage others looking at a little unknown space to take it to the voter polls and booths and question authority.... to the point of MAKING THEM ANSWER THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE... and of course the question of stop wasting "my" mind with mind control experiments and just give me my social security settlement becomes a little less personal and a little more empowering.

We still haven't answered the question of what the sticker means though have we...?

Well, that dear Virginia... is what the mind experiments are all about...

and if... and yes we KNOW CLONING is a very lucretive experiment...

one is then left with the next inevitable string of never-ending questions for perpetual traing and teaching forums...

what are they, you, me, us, them, theirs that...

(oh yes.. don't forget the "Artificial Intelligence" aspect of "that"...)


Copyrite October 10, 2008 for andthis cannot beused in part or in whole without the authors expressed written consent in person now.

Author, Danielbennettkieneker

Posted by d.b.kieneker | October 10, 2008 10:31 AM

It makes me sick to think that this girl will have to register as a sex offender or go through any of this bullshit. It's so sad to think that 15 year old girls in America feel the need/desire to exploit themselves for attention or validation. Girls' perceptions of themselves & the real issues here will not be solved by prosecuting this girl.

Posted by ann | October 10, 2008 10:33 AM


Pony Express? I thought it was carrier pigeon.

Posted by sw | October 10, 2008 10:35 AM

This happened at Eckstein Middle School last year. Lots of kids involved, but as far as I know, no charges pressed. Somehow the MSM seemed to miss it completely.

Posted by I Got Nuthin' | October 10, 2008 10:45 AM

does this mean that masterbation violates sodamy laws?

Posted by frede | October 10, 2008 11:01 AM

Not exactly poor stupid kid, but rather totally reasonable kid and stupid fucked up laws and law enforcers.

Posted by SF gal | October 10, 2008 11:12 AM

The kids who received the photos shouldn't be charged. You can't refuse to accept a text message unfortunately.

Posted by Faber | October 10, 2008 11:26 AM

It's funny how our society has instilled the idea in this girl's head that she's a sex object, and now the same society is punishing her for acting as such.

Posted by Scott | October 10, 2008 11:39 AM

The law need some re-tooling that is for sure how ever the guide lines need to be applauded. This young girl took the pictures herself and sent them however if they end up in the wrong hands who is to say what could happen. Child exploitation be it by an actual child pornographer or the person themselves is still exploitation. Maybe this case will make young girls and boys think twice about doing such things.
If it were a young boy who was sending the pictures would people still feel that the rules are too harsh?

Posted by this makes me sad | October 10, 2008 11:40 AM

Adding to this insanity is Wa. Attorney General McKenna's proposal to add viewing child pornography as a crime with a minimum one year prison term. Just think how misconstrued that will get!

Posted by raindrop | October 10, 2008 11:47 AM

I feel really sad for this kid. she did something impulsive that really harmed no one and is going to have to pay for it for the rest of her life. to add additional charges of "possession of criminal tools", her cellphone is even more draconian. They are treating her as if she is a career sexual predator. She will never be able to get a decent job and maintain a good life.

Posted by inkweary | October 10, 2008 11:50 AM

@1: Yeah, Licking County. We also have a Wayne County, which makes me laugh every time I see the sign "Entering Wayne County"

@9: If you are referring to the pic included in the SLOG post, you DO know that's Miley Cyrus, right?

I am quite sure the charges will disappear, after the kid has been properly frightened out of her dumb-assery.

Posted by Nora | October 10, 2008 11:56 AM
Child exploitation be it by an actual child pornographer or the person themselves is still exploitation.

ex·ploi·ta·tion (ěk'sploi-tā'shən) Pronunciation Key

1. The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage: exploitation of copper deposits.

2. Utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes: exploitation of unwary consumers.

3. An advertising or a publicity program.

I'm not sure how a minor taking a picture of herself could be considered exploitation in the same way that somebody else doing so would be. It seems to me the law criminalizes the wrong piece of the process -- the creation of an image. In this age of ubiquitous cameras in both public and private spaces capturing everything in their field 24/7, the "creation" of images of all types is more or less continuous. No special "criminal tools" are necessary.

Since the intent of the law is to prevent harm to minors arising from such exploitation, it seems to me it is the harm that should be criminalized. In this instance it is difficult to see the rationale for classifying this person as a sex offender for taking a picture of herself. Is she also a sex offender when she looks at herself in the mirror?

If the victims of this crime are the people who received the photo, then maybe a case could be made that she's like a flasher or someone else who exposes themself. But as I understand the law, even if she'd taken the photo and never hit "send" she would still technically be considered a sex offender.

Posted by flamingbanjo | October 10, 2008 12:00 PM

Kentucky's Licking River meets the Ohio at Cincinnati. Nearby this river, in N. Kentucky, is both Beaver Lick & Big Bone Lick.

Oooh, Baby! Kentucky is fun!

Posted by max solomon | October 10, 2008 12:38 PM

#20> "We also have a Wayne County, which makes me laugh every time I see the sign "Entering Wayne County"

What makes you laugh? I guess I'm rather dull today.

Posted by fARTing | October 10, 2008 1:42 PM

@23: Wayne County, the musician, who became Jayne County--I just get a little amusement out of the idea of entering Wayne County. Yeah, I'm juvenile.

Posted by Nora | October 10, 2008 1:47 PM

@24: ah, maestro of such hits as "If You Won't Fuck Me, Fuck Off".

Posted by Fnarf | October 10, 2008 2:15 PM

This has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard of in my entire life. Good thing I only had a Polaroid when I was 13!

Posted by kyle [TCBITR] | October 10, 2008 2:20 PM

If she has to register she'll be in great shape when she's legal. How many guys would go to what deviant lengths to date a hot girl who's a registered sex offender? What would you pay to be able to say "My girlfriend is a sex offender". And then she'll be 21 someday too. Can you imagine the number of free drinks a girl would get if she went up to the bar and showed her registered sex offenders' card? And maybe she'll have kids. Imagine being 15 and able to say "My mom is a sex offender!"

Posted by Luke Baggins | October 10, 2008 2:49 PM

@17 I get where you are going with question of whether a boy would be treated in a harsher manner. But I don't think this is as simple as boys vs. girls. This is a question of what is sexual autonomy and when does that begin? We idealize half-naked figures of women and men at 15 but become shocked when it's emulated. Then instead of trying to fix the problem we decide she's a sex offender for taking advantage of herself? Whether or not this was a good decision this was a decision made by her affecting her. She took advantage of her own body. Saying that someone underage is not capable of giving consent is one thing. Saying they cannot consent to themselves is another. Labeling her a sex offender does what exactly? Those laws are there to protect victims and potential future victims from an abuser. How can she be protected from herself? Except by now living in fear that if she stands too long in front of the mirror she'll wind up in jail.
I agree this is sad for everyone.

Posted by mrs. superlove | October 10, 2008 4:17 PM

just on the totaly irelevant but very funny side note.
when i wathched the item on the ABC pages i got an advertisment first for a canon digital camera with some advertisment slogans that sounden very dubious and sexual in this context.

Posted by what a bunch of idiots... | October 12, 2008 6:07 AM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.