Ok so this is not really Red Dirt news in the traditional sense but it did happen in a small town (13,000 people) so what the hell. Plus it’s my way of getting some traffic to my blog.
In Goshen, Ohio the scandle broke! Ok here is the story as we know it.
A yet unnamed 15 year old cheerleader, while at a party (at the football coach’s house of all places) decided to go to the bathroom and using her cell phone camera was going to send a topless photo of herself to her boyfriend. Not a big deal, unless it’s your daughter showing her TaTa’s off. Well any way the cheerleading coach, Victoria Schattauer age 19, came in while the young cheerleader was topless and asked what she was doing. Well she offered to give her topless cheerleader’s boyfriend a”Real Show” and she took off her top also for the photo. Harmless enough I guess, unless like I said it’s your 15 year old daughter showing…. you get the idea! Well her boyfriend thought WOW and sent the photo to some of his friend and within hours it was all over the internet!
Ok well here we are the Cheerleading coach, barely legal age herself half naked with a 15 year old girl in the Football coach’s house where everyone was drinking, including minors, and allegedly the 15 female in question. Needless to say some action had to be taken. Victoria Schattauer and Andrew Emerson the Asst. Football Coach who through the party, who I might add is only 19 also, were both fired.
It has also been reported that some citizens in the Goshen area have said “What is the big deal!”. Granted both females are attractive but come on folks! WAKE UP! the girl is 15!! I guess they don’t have any daughters themselves or judging by the age of those involved there is no one over 21 in the town so it’s all Football, sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll to them….Well I have a 16 year old daughter and I would find something REALLY wrong if a picture like this of my daughter wound up on the internet!
OK I know some of you still have not seen the photo and are chomping at the bit to see what the fuss is all about. OK I’ll post it here (the censored version anyway) Sorry guys! or gals!
So did you read the article or just scroll to the pic?
and although I won’t post the uncensored version you can find it here!
UPDATE!
Charges have been filed.
OK get this, a picture of a 15 year old girl topless gets plastered all over the internet and the person responsible for the photo being taken, Victoria Schattauer only gets a misdemeanor charge of “Tending to cause the unruliness of a child” and as for the Asst. Coach Andrew Emerson he get a charge of “Providing alcohol to a minor” and that is the only charges for now!
OK I looked this up in the drinking laws in Ohio.
No one under the age of 21 is allowed to possess or consume any alcohol in any public or private place, unless the underage person is accompanied by a parent, spouse who is not an underage person, or legal guardian. Also anyone under the age of 18 is not allowed to possess or consume any low-alcohol beverage in any public or private place, unless accompanied by a parent, spouse who is not an underage person, or legal guardian.
My thought is “Where did the alcohol come from?” shouldn’t there be someone else involved in this case?
Also what about Child pornography charges? I did a little research and here is some info I found:
I’ll edit out the unneeded parts and just show what relates to this case.
Federal Statutes:
Title 18 of the United States Code governs child pornography. Chapter 110, Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children. 18 U.S.C. § 2256 defines “Child pornography” as:
“any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where –
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct . . .”
Sexually Explicit Conduct:
18 U.S.C. § 2252 prohibits the production, transportation, or knowing receipt or distribution of any visual depiction “of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” For the purposes of Title 18, 18 U.S.C. § 2256 defines a “minor” as any person under the age of eighteen years, and “sexually explicit conduct” as actual or simulated:
…….(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person
Section (E) prohibits images of “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area.” Courts that have interpreted this section have done so broadly – “as used in the child pornography statute, the ordinary meaning of the phrase “lascivious exhibition” means a depiction which displays or brings forth to view in order to attract notice to the genitals or pubic area of children, in order to excite lustfulness or sexual stimulation in the viewer.”
Dictionary.Com defines Lascivious as:
las·civ·i·ous
Pronunciation[luh-siv-ee-uhs]
–adjective
1. inclined to lustfulness; wanton; lewd: a lascivious, girl-chasing old man.
2. arousing sexual desire: lascivious photographs.
3. indicating sexual interest or expressive of lust or lewdness: a lascivious gesture.
And Ohio State code 2907.01(M) describes “Minor” or “Child” as any person under the age of 18.
Therefore, at least in my opinion, since the photo in question was sent to the 15 year olds boyfriend I am sure it was meant to cause arousal thus making it “Child Porn”. So I feel that the Blanchester Ohio Police dropped the ball on this one unless they persue it a little further!
Only time will tell!
Texas / Red Dirt Music Scene 
This is an interesting case. I wonder if this is a loop hole type of thing. The statue wording references “sexual acts” and the pubic area. Now no acts are taking place, and its above the waist– but you make a good point in stating that it was probably intended for arousal.
It’ll be interesting to see how this turns out.
Good thing, it wasn’t our daughter. My husband would have died. I don’t think this was an appropriate behavior from a coach and her student.
It’s not child pornography as no sexually explicit conduct was depicted, as defined in the federal code. Any intended laciviousness is irrelevant.
there both hot, Im only 19 tho but I think there georgus:P
[…] Child Porn in Denton County OK almost a year ago I posted an article about Victoria Schattauer, a cheerleading coach in Goshen, Ohio, who took a topless photo with a 15 year old cheerleader and the picture was sent via text/photo message to the cheerleaders boyfriend. (Read More) […]
Ok I don’t get the big deal here. Yup I’m not a parent either. But seriously, and I’m not intending to be offensive here, although if you take it that way I really couldn’t give a damn, American’s treat their children so badly. You let them drive at 16, which is irresponsible, and then say they can’t drink until they are 21. That is seriously messed up. Also, while posting the picture on the internet is obviously wrong, since it was intended for personal presentation, they should really be allowed to do whatever they damn well please. They’ll soon be able to do it anyway, and I’m guessing that there’s been more than most people expect between this girl and her boyfriend. I do not understand why the Assistant Coach was fired. It seems to me like he didn’t do anything bad, unless I am mistaken? If they are to be cooped up and then released when they come of age, what can people expect except big intakes of everything. I wish the world would see more sense.
Gute Arbeit hier! Gute Inhalte.
Vielen Dank und Dank für das Lesen.
well im going to be completly honest…. as reading the above print im starting to question all other past cases that contained a teen female sending topless photos to other people…as the federal code puts it….something is considered child porn if it depicts the person being photographed is doing any sexual action and under 18 or if it shows anything in the pubic region…this has neither. As for the lacivious part…this is too broad a statement to even be put in there. Everyone know that people have, for lack of a better term, kinky desires to it can be said that sending a picture of a banana may stimulate someone…or that sending a picture of a latex glove can arouse someone. So in my personal oppinion this code has to be reworked
Wow! Breasts! Why are you Americans so hang up with the human body? I have 2 daughters and I hope I never develop your psychological difficulties. You really need to question your own attitudes before blindly casting stones.