OK, if the press has their story straight, this is truly outrageous! "Foster" is the boy's defense atty, and here's some more about the case.
"Foster said the case began when the teen’s 15-year-old girlfriend sent photos of herself to the 17-year-old, who in turn sent her the video in question. The girl has not been charged, and her mother filed a complaint about the boy’s video, Foster said."
So, the girl started the sexting (but may not have sent explicit photos), and the boy responded in kind. They're trying to get him on the Virginia statute (18.2-374.1) for child pornography (of his own image) because he was under 18 when he sent it. They already made one attempt:
"The case was dismissed, but police immediately obtained new charges and also a search warrant for his home. Police also arrested the teen and took him to juvenile jail, where Foster said they took photos of the teen’s genitals against his will."
They must not have found any distinguishing marks, because that's what it'll take for them to win this case. The statute says:
"A. For purposes of this article and Article 4 (§ 18.2-362 et seq.) of this chapter, "child pornography" means sexually explicit visual material which utilizes or has as a subject an identifiable minor. An identifiable minor is a person who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting or modifying the visual depiction; and who is recognizable as an actual person by the person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor."
So they want to force an erect picture to try to get a reeeeeally direct comparison to see if they can make their claim. It's a low, LOW action by the prosecutor!