Advertisements
Court files stated that the three teenagers regularly & # 39; crazy video & # 39; s & # 39; would send. File p [icture

16 year old girl is confronted with child pornography after making sex video of herself

  • Court files stated that the three teenagers regularly & # 39; silly video & # 39; s & # 39; would send
  • The 16-year-old, referred to as S.K, sent a video clip of her executive fellatio
  • The three friends dropped out and two of them informed a school assistant officer
  • S.K was tested and referred to an evaluation of mental health
Advertisements

Documents from the court showed that a 16-year-old girl from Maryland was being prosecuted for texting & of her friends from a sex video she made of herself.

Advertisements

She did this in October 2016 and when she was reported by the two friends, at the age of 16 and 17 months after a failure, the courts in the state found that they were violating child pornography laws.

Court files stated that the three teenagers regularly & # 39; silly video & # 39; s & # 39; would attempt to scam each other & # 39 ;.

The 16-year-old, referred to as S.K, sent the one-minute clip of her executive fellatio to an unidentified man and was charged with the distribution of child pornography in the juvenile court.

Court files stated that the three teenagers regularly & # 39; crazy video & # 39; s & # 39; would send. File p [icture

Court files stated that the three teenagers regularly & # 39; crazy video & # 39; s & # 39; would send. File p [icture

Advertisements

Two friends and the school equipment official testified, according to court cases. The other two children informed the Charles County Sheriff & # 39; s Office officer, and although at least one of them shared it at school, only S.K faced indictments.

She was tested and referred to a mental health assessment, according to the data.

She and her family have appealed the judgment and are now awaiting a ruling from the Court of Appeals [Maryland].

At the girl's first hearing, the prosecutor said the state is not trying to prove a point to move forward in this case, but that the state believes the respondent needs to some guidance, rehabilitation for something deeper & # 39; and & # 39; just trying to help her. & # 39;

The Court of Appeal took the side of the state by considering that legislation had not included exceptions for consensual sex or for self-produced child pornography.

Advertisements

& # 39; The state has an undeniable interest in protecting minors from exploitation & # 39; as topics in pornographic material & # 39 ;. . . or by others or their own behavior, & wrote the chief judge.

In the same judgment, however, the court rejected the finding that the teenager was responsible for showing & # 39; obscene material & # 39; to a minor because the law does not specifically refer to the technology that she used before.

In a February appeal, the child's lawyer said that the teen's behavior was voluntary and legal and that the laws applied against her were not applicable because everything was consistent.

& # 39; The statute is intended as a vehicle to protect and not prosecute minors who are victims and exploited in the production of sexually explicit video & # 39; s & # 39 ;, Claudia Cortese wrote defensively.

The man's age was not included in the court records, but he thought he was at least 16 years old.

Advertisements

. [TagsToTranslate] Dailymail