The 16-year-old student who allegedly distributed nude pictures of former Union teacher Leigh Anne Arthur has been charged with Computer Crimes Act and Aggravated Voyeurism, according to Union Police Chief Sam White.
They say the charge of Computer Crimes is a result of the juvenile accessing the personal information of the cell phone without authorization.
The charge of aggravated voyeurism is a result of the copying and dissemination off the teacher’s photographs.
Read more on WSPA.
This case attracted a lot of attention when it was first reported because the teacher lost her job, even though many would consider a victim of a breach by the student. In today’s report, there’s a statement from the school that contradicts some of what had been suggested:
This is a case where a staff member, properly supervising students, could have prevented a very serious problem. Contrary to statements attributed to Ms. Arthur concerning the phone, evidence indicates that students routinely used the teacher’s cell phone with full her permission.
If it turns out that the teacher routinely allowed students to use her cell phone, then she put temptation in front of them, but should she have been fired for having personal information on her phone that wasn’t adequately secured from prying eyes, or is this a situation where the embarrassment is its own teachable moment for the teacher, and she should not have lost her job?