• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

ZMO Law

  • About Us
  • Attorneys
    • ZMO Law Team
    • Zachary Margulis-Ohnuma
    • Tess Cohen
    • Shane Finn
  • Practice Areas
    • Criminal Appeals
    • Civil Rights
    • Healthcare Crimes
    • Sex Crimes
    • Federal Crimes
    • Victims Rights
  • In The News
  • ZMO Law Blog
  • Contact

Sep 08 2019 Child Pornography, Civil Rights Advocacy, Crime and Technology, First Amendment, Sex Crimes, What's New

In Maryland, you can be prosecuted for exploiting…yourself

By Zachary Margulis-Ohnuma

In the latest perversion of the laws against child pornography, Maryland’s highest court late last month upheld the conviction of a teenage girl for sending around a one-minute video of herself performing fellatio.

The recipient of the fellatio was not prosecuted.

Neither were the girl’s erstwhile friends who, after a falling out, may have distributed the video (the court, in a lengthy decision, pointed out that the video was originally distributed in a super-private group chat with two friends, only one of whom later became hostile to the girl in the video).

The video ended up on the phones of other classmates, the school resource officer, and, ultimately, the State’s Attorney. An officer from the Charles County Sheriff’s Office was dispatched to “interview” the girl in the video. She confessed.

The brilliant legal minds in the Charles County prosecutor’s office charged the 16-year-old, known as S.K., with three criminal counts of child pornography and obscenity. The case reached the Maryland high court last year and was decided in August. It is known as In re: S.K. and can be found here.

The Maryland Court of Appeals performed some mental gymnastics to conclude that state’s child porn and obscenity statutes can be used to prosecute the person distributing child pornography, even if she was the victim.

Of course, this was wrong.

As a dissenting judge pointed out based on a careful analysis of Maryland’s statutes, the laws against child pornography and obscenity are intended to protect victimized children, not to prosecute them: “In the case at bar, S.K. was not being exploited by someone else. She made a video depicting consensual sexual conduct,” wrote Judge Michele D. Hotten. “The General Assembly did not seek to subject minors who recorded themselves in non-exploitative sexual encounters to prosecution…. Rather, the statute contemplates protecting children from the actions of others that bear negatively upon them.”

Judge Hotten continued: “It is clear that S.K. suffered immense distress after learning that the digital file had been circulated among peers—such distress that she could not fathom going back to school for an entire month….It therefore seems counterintuitive to further subject S.K. to prosecution under a statute that was designed to protect her.”

The court did not reach the question of whether the prosecution of S.K. for taking a picture of herself was constitutional. The law, as interpreted by the majority to apply to prosecute the person depicted, seems ripe for challenge under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. And the court never questioned why the kids who tormented S.K. by distributing the pictures were left to go about their business.

It seems obvious that S.K. did not think she might be prosecuted as a juvenile delinquent for sexting her two friends. She had the courage to fight this absurd application of the law all the way to the state’s highest court. Shame that the majority there did not have the courage to listen to her.

Primary Sidebar

Topics

  • Child Pornography
  • Civil Rights Advocacy
  • Crime and Technology
  • First Amendment
  • Healthcare Fraud
  • News
  • Prisoners' Rights
  • Sentencing
  • Sex Crimes
  • What's New
  • White Collar Crime

Recent Entries

  • A Little Drug Relief? June 5, 2025
  • Welcoming attorney Shane Finn to ZMO Law April 28, 2025
  • Is Matt Gaetz a sex trafficker? November 20, 2024

CONTACT US NOW

NEW YORK: 212-685-0999
24 HOUR: 515-966-5291

Name(Required)
Previous Who Killed Jeffrey Epstein?
Next The judge gave the FBI a warrant to break into computers in Virginia. They used it in New York. Good faith?

Footer

ZMO Law PLLC

We serve the following localities: New York City including New York County, Bronx County, Kings County, and Queens County; and Westchester County.

Learn More

Practice Areas
  • Sex Crimes
  • Federal Crimes
  • Civil Rights
  • Health Care Crimes
Contact Us

ZMO Law PLLC
353 Lexington Avenue, Suite 900
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 685-0999

  • linkedin
  • facebook-alt
  • x
  • Criminal Court Process
  • Glossary of Legal Terms
  • NYS Statement of Client’s Rights
  • Criminal Investigation
  • Servicios en Español
  • Reviews
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service

Copyright © 2025 · ZMO Law PLLC | Sitemap