[T]he statute simply does not bear the construction the amici would give it.

The terms of the statute are clear — “[a] person” who disseminates sexually explicit photographs of “a minor” violates the statute. Like E.G., the amici do not argue that there is any ambiguity in the terms of the statute. Instead, pointing to the statement of intent adopted by the legislature, they argue that it is not rational that E.G. can both be the victim of the offense and the perpetrator. There are a couple of problems with that argument.

Although there is no ambiguity in the statute that would require a reviewing court to construe the statute with regard to legislative intent, the amici properly nonetheless note that statutes should be interpreted to avoid absurd results. They argue that it would be absurd for E.G. to be both victim and perpetrator. We disagree….

[N]othing in the statute requires proof of any specific “victim” status as an element of the offense. Rather, child pornography per se victimizes children, which is the reason the legislature is seeking to eradicate it, whether or not the child willingly takes part. [Footnote: Even if typical sexting initially is treated as innocent activity, there is still a significant risk of harm when one of the recipients subsequently shares the images with others, whether the new recipients are peers or adults. [Studies] show that further transmission of shared images to others is a common occurrence and an easy way to misuse “innocent” sharing to victimize a minor.] The legislature can rationally decide that it needs to protect children from themselves by eliminating all child pornography, including self-produced images that were not created for commercial reasons….

Amici make a strong policy argument that sexting cases should not be treated under the dealing in depictions statute. The prosecutor agreed at oral argument that prosecutors typically would not charge such cases under that law. Since this was not a sexting case, this court need not weigh in on that issue now. But if this statute needs to be amended to ensure that policy — or some other statute needs to be enacted to address the problem, then the legislature is the body that must act. Amici’s policy arguments are best addressed to that body.