Teen Charged With Sexually Exploiting A Minor -- Himself
And he'll be charged as an adult.

Unbelievable story from Robby Soave at Reason:

A North Carolina 17-year-old caught in a sexting scandal faces charges of sexually exploiting a minor that could land him in jail for up to 10 years, since the law considers him an adult. But one of the minors he supposedly exploited is himself­--which raises an obvious question: how can a teen be old enough to face adult felony charges, but not old enough to keep a nude picture of himself on his phone?

Unfortunately, that's the Kafka-esque nightmare in which Fayetteville-area high schooler Cormega Copening finds himself after exchanging private nude photos with his girlfriend--with whom he is legally allowed to have sex, but not to sext.

...Copening and his girlfriend--now identified as Brianna Denson--are like other teenagers in that they have more than a passing interest in sex. Indeed, when they were 16, they exchanged racy sexy photos via text message. Denson sent pictures to Copening, and Copening sent pictures to Denson. It appears that no one else saw the pictures until local authorities searched Copening's phone and discovered them.

Why did they search his phone? It's not clear, but local news reports claimed that it had nothing to do with the sexts themselves. The Cumberland County Sheriff's Office did not respond to a request for comment. According to fayobserver.com, there is no record of a search warrant being issued for Copening's phone.

Both teens were charged with sexual exploitation. Denson pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and was given 12 months of probation.

Copening, however, is still facing two counts of second-degree sexual exploitation and three counts of third-degree exploitation. As Ricochet's Tom Meyer points out, the third-degree charges--which constitute a majority of the total charges--actually stem from the pictures Copening had of himself. The implication is clear: Copening does not own himself, from the standpoint of the law, and is not free to keep sexually-provocative pictures, even if they depict his own body.

Tim Cushing wrote about this at TechDirt and noted:

There is nothing about this case that isn't tragically stupid. At worst, the officers should have considered the context, the consensual nature and the lack of age discrepancy and did what the charging detective recommended -- sending the teens home to their parents. If any discipline was needed for these actions, it's well within the remand of their respective legal guardians, not the state that has decided people of a certain age aren't allowed to own any part of themselves until the government says its OK.

The problem with having laws on the books and having them be expansive is that they can -- and often will -- be used, and against people who show no danger to society.

A Guardian piece by Flic Everett gets it right in the headline and subhead:

Don't criminalise sexting teenagers - mistakes are part of growing up: It's wrong that police added a 14-year-old to a criminal database for sending a naked image of himself. He's not a sexual abuser, simply a boy who made an error.

How amazing that this needs to be said.