Sex Offender? Teenager Possesses Nude Pictures of . . . Himself

This wikilog article is a draft, it was not published yet.

by: Ryan • September 24, 2015 • no comments

Well, it was only a matter of time before this happened. This story is out of North Carolina, but there's no obvious reason this couldn't happen under Oregon law as well. Headline: Teen Faced Felony Charges For Having Nude Photos of Himself on His Phone

In State v. Reeves (2012), the state argued:

The state argues, nevertheless, that nonmerger with respect to some, and perhaps all, of the counts can be independently justified under ORS 161.067(2). In that regard, the state posits that "[t]he children depicted in child pornography are victims both of the underlying sexual abuse and of the possession and distribution of the resulting child pornography." (Emphasis in original.) The state further posits that, "'because such activities, by their very nature, are abusive to children, it follows that a violation' [of ORS 163.684] necessarily involves material 'that is directly and inextricably connected with sexual abuse of children.'" (Quoting State v. Stoneman, 323 Or 536, 541, 920 P2d 535 14(1996).)

The Reeves Court "agree[d] with the state."

The claim that child porn necessarily was a product of abuse should have been treated by the court with more skepticism even then. It's not as though the ubiquity of smartphones, the sexual and short-sighted nature of teenagers or the concepts of sexting were unknown in 2012. Nevertheless, what the court did not recognize then should be obvious now, as demonstrated by the teenager who nearly ended up a registered sex offender for possessing nude pictures of himself. Under Oregon law, he'd be both sex offender and victim. Given, furthermore, that in most states, the age of consent is under 18, a 16 or 17 year old can legally have intercourse but could go to prison for taking pictures of it.

I have previously written about the problem with identifying the child as a victim. The same porn people look at now they'll be looking at 100 years from now, when the people in the images have likely passed away. Are they still victims, for all eternity, every time someone downloads the picture? If we had child porn of Abraham Lincoln, is he still a victim when someone passes it along? The longstanding principal has been that a dead person is beyond all harm. But the impulse to label someone a victim, and all the benefits that entails, is pretty strong.

Reeves II dodged the issue of whether dead people could be victims of ECSA. Hopefully someone will preserve the issue and get it back up to the appellate courts.