McKayla Maroney -- I Was Underage in Hacked Nude Photos

[jakeXT]

Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney says she was under 18 when the hacked nude photos of her were taken ... and now she's taking legal action against several porn sites that reposted the images.

TMZ has learned one of Maroney's attorneys fired off a letter to Porn.com ... informing the site that McKayla was underage in several of the photos. The letter demands the images of McKayla -- who turned 18 last December -- be taken down immediately.

Another attorney for the gymnast sent a different letter to multiple websites stating Maroney owns the copyright on the hacked photos.

The legal claims by her attorneys are a strong indication the photos really do show McKayla -- even though she said on Twitter they were "fake photos." It's also possible only portions of the images are really McKayla. The letter is not specific.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2014/09/02/mckayla-maroney-nude-photos-underage-lawyer-letter-porn-sites/

[TDale313]

1. That changes things.

Serious violations anyway, but now you're adding child porn to the equation.

[MFrohike]

2. Just a thought

I don't doubt that her celebrity status will completely immunize her, but it's funny that she's implying that the porn site is violating the laws regarding transmission of child porn when she's the one who did it in the first place. Those pics didn't upload themselves into iCloud.

Anyway, just an amusing though for all to enjoy.

[justiceischeap]

3. And to cover HER umm behind

She needs to state that she didn't willingly share them publicly should SHE get dinged or uploading underage material to the cloud.

[MFrohike]

7. She'll be fine

Like I said, her celebrity status will immunize her.

The issue would not be whether she shared them but whether she transmitted them, whether by actively pushing a button or by consenting to automatic backup.

[TBF]

46. No consent under age 18. nt

[MFrohike]

140. It doesn't work that way

The issue is not consent, it's enforceability.

[pnwmom]

68. Her celebrity status is irrelevant. The government isn't about to go after teens

whose photos were hacked. They are victims, not purveyors.

[BlueCaliDem]

76. Thank you!

It sickens me that there's even a discussion whether it's her fault or the porn-sites' fault that her hacked underage photos are being bought and published online for profit.

She was underaged when those photos were taken, and they were - supposed to be - locked up in her icloud that most likely has auto-backup. She is a victim. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. I hope they go after whoever got illegal access to her account, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of any and all laws in order to set an example for future potential purveyors that this is just not ok.

[pnwmom]

77. A lot of people seem to be enjoying viewing themselves as far superior

to the young women who didn't understand the cloud, their iPhones default positions, or that their photos could be hackable.

There seems to be a major lack of empathy exposed here.

[BlueCaliDem]

81. I agree.

I just never thought I'd see the day when people would blame the victim instead of big business that are exploiting them for profit.

I recall, not too long ago, the (justified or not) anger when it was revealed the U.S. Government was collecting meta data on Americans. The fury was palpable.

But this is okay??

We truly are becoming serfs in our society, where profit-hungry corporations are allowed to do anything they want with impunity, the government - the only entity that can protect us against such exploitation - should be stripped of all powers, and we serfs should bow our heads and say, "thank you, masters".

[pnwmom]

110. I bet those same people are still furious about THAT.

But they're enjoying what happened to these young women because it gives them a chance to feel superior.

[BlueCaliDem]

115. The disconnect is

absolutely mind-boggling. I just can't wrap my head around that type of double-standard.

[Lancero]

165. I've heard of a few cases like this in the past...

Where teens who took naked selfies and sent them were charged with creating and distributing child pornography.

I didn't follow the cases, so I don't know what - if anything - came of them.

[pnwmom]

169. Those cases weren't like this, because these women didn't "send" their photos to anyone.

These women kept photos on their own phones and didn't realize they were hackable, through the cloud.

[xmas74]

168. Thank you!

Why are some even attempting to shame the victim here?

[JaneyVee]

4. Actually, they do upload themselves into the cloud.

Most phones auto backup all your files every few days or so.

[MFrohike]

5. Without enabling the feature?

I don't own an iphone, but I've had an itunes account. Apple is pretty big on notifications from my experience.

[bigwillq]

6. Ive had an iPhone for about 6 years

and I still don't know what the cloud is, what it does, and which features it adds, saves, uploads, etc.
Guess I should look into it, but the cloud may be doing things without my (and, most likely anyone else) approval or knowledge.

[MFrohike]

8. It's possible

I would expect it to be one of those hundred buttons you have to push to get the phone actually working. I wouldn't imagine Apple would automatically backup everything without some pretense of consent.

[pnwmom]

69. You don't have to push a hundred buttons to get the phone working. Most settings are default,

so you push very few.

[MFrohike]

121. Hyperbole

The point was that my guess is that some form of consent to automatic backups comes during the setup phase of the phone.

[pnwmom]

172. It didn't with my iPhone. That was the default setting. But it wouldn't matter anyway.

I doubt that the average user even understands what "the cloud" is. And I bet that was a deliberate choice of the marketing people.

[pnwmom]

70. And I bet you are in the solid majority. All these DUers who condemn these young women

for not understanding what was happening to their photos are full of it. It's just another way of victim-blaming.

[herding cats]

143. Ever been in an Apple store?

I know people who will only buy their Apple products from an actual brick and mortar type Apple store. I suspect it's because they don't have a clue how to set them up themselves, but have to have the gadget anyway. It's not like a regular store. When you walk in a person will ask you what you're looking for, then after deciding what you want they send the info via text to another associate. That associate walks up with your product in hand before you even realized you've made a decision and hands it to you. Then they hustle you off to another associate who then holds your hand while they have you unbox and enable the device and its features. Then they send you out into the world wielding your new enabled device. I doubt many ever mess with their settings again after that first day unless they're having problems with their device. Even then a lot of people will simply walk back into the Apple store and have an associate again hold their hand while they change the settings.

I think a lot of us make the mistake of assuming everyone buys their devices the same way we did, understands what the devices do and use them like we do. Which simply isn't the case in this day and age. As to the average persons understanding of remote storage (clouds), they honestly haven't a clue what it is or how it works. They just know that when they get their next phone/tablet, etc. all their stuff magically reappears there after they log into their account. Where it was before it showed back up on their device is not something they've ever even contemplated.

[TransitJohn]

14. Only to people who accept default installations

Smart people don't, and never have.

[JaneyVee]

38. Smart people...

I know plenty of smart people that use auto backup. It's a very smart thing to do.

[TransitJohn]

39. It's smarter to backup onto your on separate physical media you possess.

Putting data on other people's computers is not smart, in my opinion. No, I don't use webmail.

[pnwmom]

72. I know a PhD engineer who backs his data up on a secure server

because he thinks their security is safer than any home system could be. How do you know he's wrong?

[TransitJohn]

190. More power to him.

This geologist and chemical engineer just thinks it's foolish to trust other people with my data on their machines. Things out of that person's control can happen. What's hard to understand about that?

[pnwmom]

193. How do you know your home wi fi can't be broken into? Or do you not have wi fi? nt

[TransitJohn]

194. I don't.

But I take all available precautions. I encrypt WPA2. If I'm using passwords, I will never leave one active for more than 10 days without changing it. I usually use the WPS hardware authentication, so someone would physically have to touch my router to connect to my wifi. I also never, ever, broadcast my SSID, so people can't see my network in their list of wifi networks, unless they know what they're doing. If I'm connected to my company's VPN, I never use wifi, always cabled up. Basic security, it's not hard. I have no formal computer training. I had a cosci class in high school in 1987, using TRS-80s, then never touched a computer again until the late 90s. You have to keep up, or risk having your naked pics exploited.

[pnwmom]

71. So? The world is set up to take advantage of people who are less smart. That doesn't mean

they shouldn't be protected. Or that they are responsible for the criminal acts against them.

[RobinA]

100. This Smart Person

has purchased 2 iPhones, neither of which came with anything resembling instructions. This smart person is also in a field not even remotely related to IT and therefore knows next to nothing about the finer points of clouds, automatic backups, or a million other things I am supposed to magically know about these days in order to operate everyday technology even somewhat intelligently.

I used to be able to do a lot of things on my computer I can no longer do because they have gotten much more complicated with seemingly no way of figuring them out. Hell, I can't find anything in Windows anymore. I want 3.1 back.

[TransitJohn]

191. Try reading the instructions

or googling Youtube videos.

[NutmegYankee]

9. It's a ridiculous aspect of law that punishes a person for taking photos of themselves.

The laws need to be immediately changed to clarify that possession or movement of photos of yourself, no matter what age, is never illegal. With teen sexting, some of the arrests have been downright Kafkaesque. As for hacking - it's already a crime but if it's underage photos, slam the hacker even harder.

[MFrohike]

12. There's a thought

What if a minor wanted to license the use of their naked image for the purpose of advertising?

[hifiguy]

16. That sounds like one of the hypotheticals from hell

that are the standard woof and warp of law school exams.

[MFrohike]

18. Haha

It'd need a little more detail to reach that level!

[hifiguy]

22. True, but that is the kind of framework

for a question that has "law professor" written all over it.

[MFrohike]

23. It does

I pity the poor fools who'll be seeing a question like this on a crim exam.

[NutmegYankee]

17. You can place reasonable limitations, like no commercial use of underage photos.

But police charging two 17 year-olds with possession of child porn because they sexted each other is utterly ridiculous. This has actually happened. Society needs to deal with the fact that 16 and 17 year-olds may be sexually active. Enforcing the child porn laws on them is missing the entire point of the laws in the first place, which was to stop exploitation of children. Locking up two lovers doesn't serve any purpose but evil.

[MFrohike]

21. Not a bad argument

Since I've been doing it from the top of the thread, how would you deal with a situation in which two minors sent each other pictures of the two of them naked together? Sure, each kid would have that limited control of his or her own image, but what about the others' image?

I'm not necessarily opposed to your idea, I would just like lawmakers to think through as many possible, and probable, scenarios before making it an idea.

[NutmegYankee]

24. If both parties consented to take it, it should be handled just like how we handle it for adults.

My point is the law is being misused to destroy the lives of teenagers with no commensurate gain for society.

[yeoman6987]

154. I disagree

Can a 14 year old drive a car? No. We put limits for a purpose. 18 year olds and above only. I am not against the sexual habits of 17 year olds, but taking pictures and putting them on the web must be illegal and I hope we see soon laws against this type of activity soon!

[NutmegYankee]

174. Please explain how it helps society to destroy the future of a child?

Convicting a 17 year-old of a felony and forcing them to register as a sex offender for the duration of their life for trading pictures with their boyfriend/girlfriend is just sickening. Your post is extremely disturbing.

[pnwmom]

73. Minors can't sign contracts, so the answer is no. n/t

[MFrohike]

117. Yes they can

Minors can enter enter any contract they wish, provided there is no law to the contrary. The catch is that most contracts can't be enforced against a minor. That's very different from "can't sign contracts."

The general rule is that a minor can disavow any contract that does not relate to a necessity (food/clothing/shelter). The minor, upon reaching majority, can choose to ratify any contracts made that don't relate to a necessity.

[pnwmom]

120. Then they can't be prosecuted because they can simply disavow it. n/t

[MFrohike]

126. No

Contracts are part of the civil law, not the criminal law. Enforcement of a contract almost exclusively means a money judgment, not criminal sanctions.

[yeoman6987]

151. Absolutely disagree with you immensely

Underage folks taking nude photos of themselves and the uploading on to a computer should be illegal and punished to the fullest extent possible. We see why today!

[NutmegYankee]

173. I'm sure a felony conviction and permanent registration as a sex offender will serve them well.

Glad we protected them from themselves by destroying their future.

[TransitJohn]

197. Totally!

Hopefully McKayla is on the sex offender registry for life, that child pornographer!

[PeaceNikki]

11. She still denies that they are her.

[big_dog]

31. still? even after this tmz thing?

n/t

[PeaceNikki]

149. Her last and only statements were that they were fake.

Photos alleging to be more than 100 celebrity women were released as part of a 'game' in which the hackers collectively tried to get into the accounts of these women and some were rewarded with money (bitcoins). Some are very likely not who they claim to be. Some are.

Dozens of lawyers are working on this. Several takedown letters have been successful based on copyright claims. McKayla has only been 18 for 8 months. It's safe to assume the images taken on cell phones contain metadata that includes "date taken". It seems incredibly easy to state and effective to tell these sites that, if the images are real, she was underage in them. Her attorney carefully worded the letter to state that she was under 18 when the photos were taken. That doesn't mean that they are her, but if they are, they are child porn. Even if they aren't her, what they allege to BE is. Any website run by someone with even half a brain (even really seedy sites) do not want to play around with the possibility of child pornography so they take them down.

They may be her, they may not be her, but it doesn't matter.

[Kablooie]

109. So she says she had child porn of someone else on her iPhone?

[PeaceNikki]

123. holy shit, really??

She's not the only one to deny the photos are her and, get this, some might not have really come from the people accounts of whom they are purported.

Nuts!!!

[politicat]

19. Having not looked, I can't say content, but there are non-sex reasons to take unclothed pics.

Especially for athletes. It's a means of visually measuring muscle mass, weight, tone. I've known people who take pics of their breasts as a means of watching for changes (during weight loss or pregnancy, for example) because from the position of eyes up here, and seeing stuff daily, it can be hard to notice changes.

Not to mention that yes, 17 year olds do indeed have sex drives and are allowed to exercise them in most states.

[MFrohike]

30. That may be the case

I didn't get into her motivations because I don't care what they are. I'm only interested in the fact her lawyers implied child porn to get the pics taken down when she's the one who originally transmitted them.

[politicat]

42. They became porn when they were stolen and distributed without permission.

And child because of age of subject. Not a lawyer, but I see their rationale. It's not illegal to transmit something to yourself, and in theory, a cloud account is one's own. I can see using the rationale in a takedown notice.

[LisaL]

47. That's not how it works.

These photos are either child porn or they aren't. How could they become child porn upon distribution if they weren't child porn to begin with?

[kcr]

52. By your logic all children who are victims would be convicted

But they aren't. It's the people distributing it that are convicted.

[LisaL]

55. The children who are victims aren't making the porn themselvs.

If they are making it themselves, they can be charged.

"This week, prosecutors in Greensburg, Pennsylvania charged six teens ranging in age from 14 to 17 with creating, distributing and possessing child pornography, after three girls were found to have taken photos of themselves in the nude or partially nude and e-mailed them to friends, including three boys who are among the defendants."

http://www.wired.com/2009/01/kids/

[kcr]

60. You're the one claiming its porn in the first place

Taking a picture of oneself, regardless of age, doesn't make it porn. If one doesn't have intent for another to see it, how is it porn?

[LisaL]

62. I am not claiming that they are porn.

I haven't seen them.

[kcr]

64. You have a funny way of not claiming they're porn

"Not legal for minors to make "child porn" by taking photos of themselves."

[politicat]

66. For the same reason that medical photos are not CP when in a file, but become so when

Distributed without authorization.

This was part of one of the stings several years ago. A set of photos had been taken of children with scoliosis (I think, it's been a few years) as part of their treatment. Those photos were stolen and distributed. The creation of those photos was not creating CP; they were for a legitimate reason and had a reasonable expectation of privacy, being in medical files. They only became CP when they were stolen and distributed as CP.

[LisaL]

78. Do you have a link to that case?

[politicat]

148. Still trying to find it,

It was federal court, not supreme, and 9th or 10th district. Early 90s (ghu, how the time flies) and it was specifically about an Amiga ring (which is why I remember it -- I was an Amiga user long time back) that got caught.

[pnwmom]

79. Because the law can define anything as it wishes. Every naked picture of a child

is not child porn.

[Xithras]

85. Legally, child porn is defined by the nature of the photo. Nudity isn't even required.

There was a case a number of years ago where a guy was convicted of taking photos of young children in their underwear. There was no actual nudity, but the girls were posed in positions that were graphic and blatantly sexual. The guy worked his way through the court system, but was eventually convicted.

Nudity, or a lack of nudity, isn't the legal standard for child porn. That's why medical photos, photos of your kids in the bathtub, and even photos taken at a nude beach aren't generally considered child porn. The nature and intent of the photos determine whether or not they are porn. Any photos depicting children posing in a sexually suggestive manner, having actual sex, focusing or emphasizing their genitals, or that otherwise deliberately present children in a way that reduces them to sexual objects can qualify as child porn. Crotch shots of a child in a swimsuit on a beach would qualify. A photo of the same child, taken one second later standing by the water with a wider field of view would not. The laws are very subjective, but due to the nature of the crime, they really have to be.

For what it's worth, a sexually suggestive selfie taken by a teenager probably WOULD qualify as child porn under the letter of the law, but no reasonable person would suggest that they be prosecuted for it.

[ann---]

102. Isn't it considered

porn for the person TAKING the photos of an underage child?

[politicat]

111. Define.

Taking: as in picking up and moving, or as in operating the camera? Because it does matter now.

This is one of those cases (like the various snapshot/medical cases in the 90s) where the original intent of the unclothed photos was not licentious. Family beach photos, family bathtub photos, and medical documentation have all been distributed as CP and people have been busted for possessing and distributing them, but the original operators of the camera were not, because their intent in the photos was not for sexual gratification. This matters.

If the early 90s cases, the photos were physically misappropriated -- either stolen from medical files, or by making unauthorized prints at photo processing shops, or from discarded photo albums -- before being scanned and distributed via mailed hard drives or over BBS systems. Technology has changed, but the concept remains: intent of creator and intent of distributor.

The distributor(s) in this case certainly intended to create harm and for sexual gratification.

Please stop blaming the victim.

[ann---]

114. I didn't blame the victim - please don't accuse me of that

I blamed the PHOTOGRAPHER who photographed a nude underage child. According to this article, there was no mention why the photos were taken.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/mckayla-maroney-lawyers-gymnast-underaged-photos-released-online-report-article-1.1925895

You said "This is one of those cases....." Where does it say anywhere that McKayla's pictures were "beach photos, bathtub photos or medical documentation?"

And, yes, people who PHOTOGRAPH naked minors have been charged with promoting porn.

[politicat]

129. We're talking at cross purposes.

Which is understandable.

There is old precedent in CP cases, where the photographer had no licentious intent and therefore was not producing CP, but when the photos were misappropriated, the distributor attached licentious intent. For example: a medical shot of a child's bare back to document spinal curvature is by no means licentious, until someone misappropriated it because it's a butt shot. The medical photographer is not liable for CP, but the misappropriator is. Those are the examples that set the precedent that shields certain creators from prosecution. The existence of a photo is not the problem -- it's the distribution channel.

In this case, McKayla is both victim (in that her photos were misappropriated) and creator (in that it's presumable that she had no licentious intent in her selfies). She is not the distributor. Whoever stole her photos is.

She did not distribute her photos (at least not intentionally; cloud backup should not be distribution, although the courts have not ruled on it because it's not old enough tech to have a body of law behind it.) So she is not a creator of CP and should not be held legally liable for it.

Where it becomes victim blaming is when she is criticized for having taken photos of herself, for whatever reason, and held to be responsible for the theft and distribution.

[ann---]

141. What is CP?

Last edited Wed Sep 3, 2014, 07:41 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm sorry but your post is full of assumptions. I haven't read anywhere that her pictures were "selfies" so my comment about the person who may have PHOTOGRAPHED her was only an assumption that that was the case.

I did not blame McKala - ever, so please do not accuse me of that. She was a minor at the time.

Personally, I don't think criticizing adults for posing for nude photos or taking nude of themselves is BLAMING them if someone hacks into their account and distributes the photos. Those are two different things. Their intent was not to distribute them to the public, but I think, if anything, it shows a lack of common sense to assume anything is safe in cyberspace.

Now, I'm betting that someone misunderstands me and hits the alert button to have this post hidden.

[Generic Other]

41. Didn't Yale do it to incoming freshmen?

In the 40s-70s?

[MADem]

142. Fair point, also, the pictures might not have been taken/uploaded to "the cloud" from USA.

Not all countries have the eighteen year old rule. Also, the pictures may have been slightly photoshopped with some of it being accurate representation, and some not. I'm not looking for these pictures and have no intention of trying to figure all that out, but I hope she has good lawyers and can get some justice.

This cloud, though...it can be problematic!!!!

[world wide wally]

25. I think that "Porn" is in the eye of the beholder. Why do you say she "did" the porn herself just

because she had pictures of herself with no clothes on? She is a gymnast who has a right to be proud of her body.
I can only assume that you found it arousing personally, but that does not mean she "did" porn.

[MFrohike]

29. Not exactly

I said she, I should have said her lawyers, were implying that the porn site that posted her pics was violating the law regarding child porn. I simply remarked that if they are doing so via transmission of the pics, then she is guilty of the same thing because she is the one who uploaded the pics. It's a case of glass houses and stones.

[LisaL]

32. But she didn't distribute the photos.

[Ohio Joe]

33. Wow... That is some fuckin stretch to blame a victim...

Disgusting.

[LisaL]

45. Those are our laws.

[MFrohike]

132. Wow, that's terrible reading comprehension

Blaming the victim in this case is saying it's her fault they got stolen because she put them in a place to get stolen. I didn't say anything remotely close to that. I said the attempt to get the pictures taken down by implying that they were breaking a law NOT RELATED TO THE THEFT was hypocritical since she had presumably broken the same law when she transmitted them to the cloud.

[Ohio Joe]

183. "presumably broken"...

"when she's the one who did it in the first place"

See what you did there?

Your first statement says she broke the law... You labeled her a criminal when she broke no laws. Putting a naked picture of yourself there is not a crime even if you are under age. You turned the crime from the criminals to the victim. Then you tried to step back by changing the statement from 'fact' to 'perhaps'... It's bullshit victim blaming and it is fucking disgusting. If you had a shred of decency you would self delete and apologize... I don't expect it though.

[MFrohike]

186. You know, forget it

I just hope you only play a lawyer on the internet and not in real life. If so, I feel for your clients.

[Ohio Joe]

189. I'm shocked...

No... Actually, I'm not.

[MFrohike]

195. When you're white knighting on that mighty high horse,

it helps if you don't go for the last word. Just a tip.

[Sheldon Cooper]

199. 'white knighting'?

Interesting word choice.

[MFrohike]

202. Why?

I'm curious why a phrase I've seen in use for about the last 10 years or so is suddenly an issue.

[Ohio Joe]

200. 'white knighting'... Fucking MRA's...

Yeah, we know your code words

[MFrohike]

201. Man, you need to grow up

Seriously, this is getting pathetic. That terms long predates a bunch of losers whining on the internet. The fact you clearly don't know that means you really should take the time to learn before you type.

[Sheldon Cooper]

204. Dead giveaway, isn't it?

[pnwmom]

67. She was a teen who didn't understand that her photos were hackable.

Like many adults, she wasn't as tech savvy as all the brilliant DUers who expect her to know better. She might not even understand what "the cloud" is.

These young women have all been violated by hackers and the viewers who followed. This isn't amusing at all. It's criminal.

[Kalidurga]

75. That isn't really a thought so much as not really getting it

It doesn't matter who took the photos for it to be child porn. No court would say it isn't based on the photographer. Oh and I am not amused.

[MFrohike]

134. Hoo boy

Not even wrong.

[Chan790]

157. Really. It's the Pauli principle in action.

"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!" indeed.

[Kalidurga]

171. It is sad

it seems you are uneducatable. It's okay a lot of people with your condition lead somewhat normal lives.

[MFrohike]

177. Smug and humorless

Social butterfly, I'll bet!

[Kalidurga]

178. Look you have a whole thread of people here who can explain things much better

and with more patience than I can. So, ask them where you are going wrong here.

[MFrohike]

179. Whew

Look in the mirror and say that. Let me know just how arrogant it sounds after doing that.

[Kalidurga]

181. Somehow I don't care if people think I am arrogant or not.

IRL I get along well with my family, friends, and coworkers. You have a bigger problem than I have. Not once have you entertained the thought that your so called humor is inappropriate and indicates a blame the victim mentality. I don't care if you keep doing that have at it. And keep posting to me each post shows just how far you are willing to go to prove you have had a thought. I patiently await that proof.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

80. You have an odd sense of humor. n/t

[MFrohike]

138. Agreed

I think the humor is probably the fact that most people won't get the blatant cynicism displayed by her lawyers here.

[NuclearDem]

87. Not amused, not impressed.

[MFrohike]

139. Hahaha

When I first saw the story, I didn't know who she was. I googled the name quick and saw that pic and then I remembered.

[ann---]

101. And

who was it that was taking nude photos of an underage girl?

[PeaceNikki]

10. Oh, I see a "TMZ Exclusive" with details on a letter from her attorney.

hrm. :/

[MFrohike]

13. Touche

I should have said her lawyers.

[WinkyDink]

15. So she posed because...?

[Lex]

26. And you need to know because . . .?

[WinkyDink]

118. It's in the news?

[Lex]

131. Yes it is.

[WinkyDink]

136. That was my answer, not a question.

[mythology]

27. Because it was Tuesday

Because she wanted to see herself naked, Because she wanted whatever.

There's no reason to care because the underlying problem is that she, and others, were hacked.

I hope the sites that posted these pictures, including those of any adult celebrities are prosecuted.

[WinkyDink]

119. Excuse me, but did she not know her own age at the time?

[world wide wally]

34. Because she felt like it?

Maybe she wants to look back at herself when she is older and she doesn't have the body of a young gymnast anymore.
Is that a sin?

[WinkyDink]

122. Then don't cry "MINOR!" after the fact.

[world wide wally]

146. Why not?

[PeaceNikki]

150. Her last and only statements were that they were fake.

Photos alleging to be more than 100 celebrity women were released as part of a 'game' in which the hackers collectively tried to get into the accounts of these women and some were rewarded with money (bitcoins) for finding 'gold'. Some are very likely not who they claim to be. Some definitively are.

Dozens of lawyers are working on this. Several takedown letters have been successful based on copyright claims. McKayla has only been 18 for 8 months. It's safe to assume the images taken on cell phones contain metadata that includes "date taken". It seems incredibly easy to state and effective to tell these sites that, if the images are real, she was underage in them. Her attorney carefully worded the letter to state that she was under 18 when the photos were taken. That doesn't mean that they are her, but if they are, they are child porn. Even if they aren't her, what they allege to BE is. Any website run by someone with even half a brain (even really seedy sites) do not want to play around with the possibility of child pornography so they take them down.

They may be her, they may not be her, but it doesn't matter.

[xmas74]

36. Any number of reasons.

She felt like it, she wanted to look sexy, she wanted to visibly inventory changes to her body from long workouts or any other reason you can think of in this thread.

When I was young and worked out regularly I used to take Polaroids in very skimpy bra and panty sets, in string bikinis and, in a few cases, nude. Why? Because no matter what the scale and the tape measure say the real focus for me was how my body looked in something skimpy, such as beachwear, or in nothing at all. I was a bit excessive about it, studying every inch that didn't look exactly as I wanted it and finding new workouts to tone and tighten that area.There was nothing sexy about the pictures.

If I were 19 nowadays I'd probably take the pictures with my phone and not even think about it.

[WinkyDink]

124. Good for you! But MM was under 18 and is now claiming her minor status.

[xmas74]

166. As she should.

Those pictures were private and not meant for public consumption. If she was underage (and I wouldn't be surprised if she had been in the pics) then she should absolutely claim her minor status. It's absolute garbage that someone stole something from her and has let the world know about it. Having been a minor when the pics were taken qualifies it as kiddie porn.

Get the a-holes where it hurts. Make them realize it's not ok to do what they did. If recognizing her status as a minor at the time of pics is what puts the nail in the coffin of the idiot involved then so be it.

[NuclearDem]

40. Because it's her own damn body and she can do what she wants with it?

[LisaL]

44. Not if she was a minor.

Not legal for minors to make "child porn" by taking photos of themselves.

[kcr]

48. I think she has to distribute them

It's not illegal for a minor to take a pic of herself

[LisaL]

53. My undestanding is that production/possession is a crime even without distribution.

[kcr]

54. Yes. But she didn't distribute them, see? n/t

[LisaL]

56. Then she can not be charged with distribution.

[kcr]

58. Why aren't other children charged then?

[LisaL]

59. What other children?

[kcr]

61. Oh, come on. What children could I be talking about?

What is the subject, here?

[LisaL]

63. I can't read your mind, so I have no clue.

But if you are taking about minors taking nude photos of themselves to send to other minors, there have been a number of cases where they have been charged.

[kcr]

65. But she didn't send them

They were stolen

[Orrex]

86. Isn't it a crime simply to possess nude pictures of minors?

Haven't seen the leaked pics, but I presume that we're not talking about "six-month-old-baby-in-the-tub" pictures, right?

Isn't it considered illegal to take and possess such pictures, even if they're not distributed?

Would it have been ok for one of Ms Maroney's same-age friends to snap those pictures?

[kcr]

88. How did those possessing them come into possession?

They didn't just magically appear there on their own.

[Orrex]

89. Presumably Ms Maroney took some of them

So one might conclude that this is how she came into possession of them.

[kcr]

90. People come into possesion of child porn simply by taking pictures of themselves?

They magically transform into pictures of children? Huh.

[Orrex]

93. If they're nude pictures, then I believe that the answer is "possibly, yes."

Much would likely hinge upon jurisdictional ages of consent and the nature of the photos.

If such pictures exist (again, presuming that they aren't baby-in-the-tub photos), then are they porn or not? And, if so, do they become porn only upon distribution? What if a 15-year-old takes a bunch of explicit nude selfies and shows them off to the other kids on the school bus?


Honestly, I'm not quite clear on the point that you're arguing.

[kcr]

95. You believe magical transforming pictures are possible?

That's fascinating.

[Orrex]

96. Don't try to make me think that you're an idiot.

Because I have reason to suspect that you are not.


However, what is truly fascinating is that you're wholly unable to answer a direct question.

[kcr]

97. I don't care what you think of me

Thinking pictures can magically transform is fascinating. I can't help it.

[Orrex]

98. But no one here has asserted that that's the case, so why do you keep repeating it?

If you can't help it, then perhaps you should enlist the aid of a handler or facilitator.
Reclassifying something based on context and circumstance is hardly "magically transforming" it.



And still you are unable to answer direct questions.

[kcr]

99. That's funny considering you're the one who started this whole absurd chain

with your answer to my question about how people come into possession of child porn. I can't think you really believe that people come into possession of child porn by taking pictures of themselves. I guess it is possible. But not likely for someone savvy enough to log onto a computer and join DU.

Tell me. Should children be prosecuted for underage sex when they masturbate?

[Orrex]

104. You asked a silly question and I gave a reasonable answer

People have been convicted of child pornography for "sexting" pictures of themselves while underage. Do you dispute this? If you do not dispute it, then when do these pictures become pornography? You are asserting either that they are not porn before or after distribution, or that they become porn at the time of distribution. Which is it?

If it is neither, then what do you propose instead?

Should children be prosecuted for underage sex when they masturbate?

No, but that question is silly and irrelevant. Here's a better one: how does masturbation magically transform from not-a-crime to a crime?

[kcr]

105. Did she sext the pictures?

No? Then it wasn't a reasonable answer.

[Orrex]

108. It was a reasonable answer to your silly question

My reasonable questions in reply #86, which you still haven't managed to answer, are these:

Isn't it a crime simply to possess nude pictures of minors?

Haven't seen the leaked pics, but I presume that we're not talking about "six-month-old-baby-in-the-tub" pictures, right?

Isn't it considered illegal to take and possess such pictures, even if they're not distributed?

Would it have been ok for one of Ms Maroney's same-age friends to snap those pictures?

Why are you still unable to answer any of these questions?

[kcr]

112. Yes, I did

But you didn't like my answer because it doesn't fit with the victim blaming nonsense of charging her with childporn, hence your silly non answer about the magical changing pictures.

[Orrex]

116. Where is your reply?

You asked a series of silly questions and posed a series of silly strawman arguments, but you don't appear to have answered any questions posed to you.

Ms. Maroney is unquestionably the victim of hacking & theft. This is not "victim blaming," and anyone who asserts otherwise is an asshole.

But you didn't like my answer because it doesn't fit with the victim blaming nonsense of charging her with childporn,

Well, that's just straight up ad hominem bullshit.

Here is the question which you still haven't answered: legally, does the taking of explicit, underage nude selfies qualify as child pornography?

If the taking of underage nude pictures is child pornography, and if she took them, then she's guilty of child porngraphy, full stop. That's no more "victim blaming" than arresting a shoplifter is "blaming the victim."

If they aren't pornography, and if she took them, then she's not guilty of anything, full stop. That's no more "victim blaming" than not arresting someone for not commiting theft.

[kcr]

135. It's been asked and answered multiple times in this thread

The nature of the pictures matter. Underage nude child does not automatically mean child porn. Do medical professionals taking pictures of undressed children for medical documentation get charged with child pornography? No. So questioning whether she should face child porn charges is ridiculous. That's why I asked you if children who masturbate get charged with having underaged sex. Because see how ridiculous the question of whether she could be charged sounds now? It's victim blamey because I just don't even understand why it's occuring to people to ask that question. It's just as ridiculous as wondering if masturbating children could be charged.

[Orrex]

152. Well, here's why they ask the question:

Link HERE.

Application of Child Pornography Laws to Selfies

If an adult takes a sexually explicit picture of a minor and shares it via social media or text message, that adult will likely have run afoul of some child pornography laws. But what about a minor who takes selfies and sends them discreetly to another teen? What if the receiver then forwards the photos to others? Have they violated any laws? In many states, the answer is yes.

Though their laws were created to protect minors from exploitation caused by others, states are prosecuting minors under child pornography statutes for sending nude or otherwise lurid self-portraits, even when the minors sent the selfies without coercion. The common quirk in the laws is that there is no exception for taking or distributing sexually explicit pictures of oneself. Thus, a high school student sending a racy seflie to a boyfriend or girlfriend could subject both themselves and the receiver to prosecution for child pornography. If the picture makes its way around other social circles through online or direct sharing, anyone who received or distributed the photo could also find themselves open to charges.

(boldface emphasis mine)

I agree with you about the importance of context. Medical pics are certainly different from photos of exploitive sex acts committed under duress, for instance. Recall the discussions here on DU a few years ago about fears of TSA's body scanners and the resultant invasive photography of minors--fears that were very quickly realized, in fact. Still, if the law holds that "nude or otherwise lurid self-portaits" are illegal, then that's pretty much the bottom line.

[kcr]

160. Doesn't say possessing pics of onself is illegal.

So they're asking that question because of their own imaginations.

[Orrex]

163. Perhaps you're not clear about what a "selfie" is.

Put simply, it's a picture that one takes of oneself.

Ms. Maroney appears to have taken such pictures, while the law indicates that taking such pictures is illegal.

Therefore the question is valid, no matter how urgently you wish to pretend that it isn't.

[kcr]

167. Perhaps you're not clear about what sexually explicit means

Should minors get arrested for looking at themselves in the mirror?

[Orrex]

176. Again, you're trying to make me think you're an idiot.

Should minors get arrested for looking at themselves in the mirror?

That's a silly and irrelevant question, so we can ignore it here.

Why are you fixated on "sexually explicit" as the only criterion, when others apply?


Your argument is fatally undermined by your ongoing habit of cherry-picking helpful facts while ignoring those that don't support your claims.

[kcr]

180. Your argument is fatally flawed by its absurdity

The abusrdity of charging someone for victimizing themselves. Hey, you'd better say out loud the word, "yes" before you masturbate so no one can be mistaken that consent was given in that sexual act! That's the legal definition of rape, after all! Your sources don't mention prosecution of teens for having pictures of themselves because it's absurd.

[Orrex]

182. You are fixated on preposterous false equivalence

Masturbation and standing in front of a mirror have nothing to do with minors taking nude selfies. You can repeat the comparison as often as you like, but it simply demonstrates your lack of understanding, and your obsession with masturbation and self-absorption. Fitting, considering the overall arc of your posts.

You criticize my sources which specifically point out the illegality of minors taking nude self portraits, because those sources contradict your cherry-picked narrative. In sharp contrast, you've posted nothing to suggest that it's legal, except your own wishful thinking.

Also, you're stuck on the red herring of consent as if that's the issue, when it's not, and your failure to recognize this is quite striking. One can't simply "give consent" to commit an illegal act; otherwise, it would be like saying "I give consent to possess twelve pounds of cocaine." Still illegal, just like the manufacture of child porn is still illegal.

Taking "nude or lurid" pictures of oneself is illegal if one is a minor, even if the minor says it's ok.


Tell me something honestly: if I stop replying to you because you're boring and ridiculous, will you imagine yourself to have achieved some kind of victory?

[kcr]

184. They don't have to have anything to do with each other

They are all harmless activities that are legal and involve no one else. That is the point. They are all activities that, as soon as a second party is involved, the problems arise, legal and otherwise. Your insitence that women who are victimized by these hackers will be fine, unless they're underaged and then they could be charged too, is fantasy. She isn't going to be punished for being naughty. Sorry.

[Orrex]

187. Well, you've revealed yourself as a desperate liar.

Since I am able to rebut your lies, I have no qualms about calling you out as a liar.

Your insitence that women who are victimized by these hackers will be fine, unless they're underaged and then they could be charged too, is fantasy.

I have made no such claim nor any claim like it. In attributing that claim to me, you are lying.

She isn't going to be punished for being naughty.

Nor have I suggested that she should be, so again you are lying. "Being naughty" isn't a crime. However, the manufacture of child pornography is a crime. If she is guilty of a crime, then she should face the penalty for that crime. If she is not guilty of a crime, then she should face no penalty.

In your desperation you are not only lying, but you are also drawing false equivalence between "naughtiness" (a more or less playful undermining of social mores) and "crime" (a direct violation of law). Every statement that you make based on this false equivalence is based on a fallacy and requires no more rebuttal than pointing out the fallacy.

In your desperation to paint her as a victim (clinging to the retrograde "woman as victim" stereotype), you lie about me, you dodge questions, you make baseless claims, you ignore inconvenient facts, and you cherry-pick those facts that--in a very specific and carefully chosen context--seem to make your argument credible.

I truly didn't intend to reply to you, but since you were outright lying about me, I felt it appropriate to refute your deliberate falsehoods.

At this point you are free to pretend that you've proven your point or won the argument or whatever will satisfy your need to portray Ms. Maroney as a helpless victim. Hell, you're even free to lie about me again, because you'd probably do it anyway.

I'm going to be putting you on Ignore in about a minute, so go ahead and masturbate in front of a mirror or anything else that you do. I don't care.

You're dishonest and you don't know how to support an argument. But worst of all, you're boring.

[kcr]

188. I'm lying by saying you said she could be charged. Then you go on and state she should be charged.

Yeah, not going to take your accusation of me as a liar very seriously.

[WinkyDink]

125. Well, see, the LAW would disagree with you----indeed, it is the very law that MM is now citing. And

FTR, there are plenty of laws that forbid one from doing whatever the hell one wants with one's own body, including:

~~Ingesting certain drugs;
~~Attempting suicide;
~~Drinking alcohol as a minor;
~~Working more hours than permitted for Child Labor, if one is a child;
~~Selling one's body for sexual services.

So "because it's her body" is not quite a strong enough argument to make for the then-minor MM.

[TBF]

50. Kids do weird things -

with some serious exceptions (murder etc) we tend to treat them as the juveniles they are. Once they turn 18 it's a different ballgame.

[WinkyDink]

128. Ah. So a minor can TAKE the photo, but if someone else SEES it, she can cry "Child porn!"?

[kcr]

137. Because stealing it and distributing it so others can wank off to it shouldn't upset her one bit?

Yeah. People can't use the excuse that the child wanted it. Imagine that?

[pnwmom]

74. Because she wanted to. End of story. n/t

[WinkyDink]

130. Fine and dandy! And the hacker "wanted to" hack! I don't GADamn, but for her to think of using the

"child porn" card NOW seems to me to be a "Say Wha'?" moment.

[pnwmom]

170. Not the same. The hacker "wanted to" break the law. The hacker is the criminal,

not the young woman with her own photos on her own phone, who never intended to distribute them to anyone.

She isn't using the "child porn card." She's pointing out the truth.

[RedCappedBandit]

196. Should she have cried child porn before the pictures were stolen

and shared without her consent?

Are you fucking serious? lol

[Chan790]

158. Common for high-level athletes actually.

The purpose is to maintain a visual record of their physical form and physique for training purposes from a consistent angle and viewpoint in order to track changes in weight, form and muscle-mass.

[TransitJohn]

192. Two reasons:

1)because she wanted to, and
2)none of your fucking business

[Nye Bevan]

28. I believe an underage head photoshopped onto an over-21 naked body is still considered child porn.

With penalties for possession and distribution.

[Xithras]

37. It's a legal gray area.

People have been charged and convicted for doing it, but the cases have been tossed on appeal. Because they are technically "generated artwork", and not actual depictions of nude children, the courts have generally sided with the defendants and have said that it's not child porn.

The last time I read anything on the subject, it was still being debated pretty intensely. I don't think there's actually a national legal consensus on it yet.

[Xithras]

35. Which means that everyone who viewed the photos committed a felony.

The FBI might want to think about subpoenaing the logs at imgur and all the various sites that were hosting them, and start logging the IP's of the people sharing the image dumps on the torrent sites. All of those people are trading child porn.

Throw a few hundred of them in prison for trading child porn, and the rest may think twice about seeking out these photos in the future.

As a bonus, if they can actually identify the people who perpetrated the original hack, the feds just gained the ability to prosecute them with attempting to sell child pornography for commercial gain (they were trying to sell the images at one point). That could add decades to their prison term.

[LisaL]

43. And while we are at it, she can potentially be thrown in prison too. For

allegedly taking these photos.

[kcr]

49. Is she the one who distributed them?

I think you are very much wrong there.

[LisaL]

51. But making child porn and possessing it is a crime. Even if photos aren't distributed.

No?

[kcr]

57. All children who are victims aren't convicted, no?

Why is that? Because they aren't the ones who distributed it. Frankly I think charging underage kids with porn for their own pics is ludicrous, but the fact it happens doesn't mean underage people will be convicted if their own pics are stolen and disseminated by others.

[AngryAmish]

82. I agree with everything you said

Someone probably got forwarded these from a boyfriend or girlfriend's phone. Or stole them from those phones.

[AngryAmish]

145. If she sent them to a boyfriend or girlfriend then she distributed them.

Getting her in any trouble for this is absurd. Yet those are the stupid laws we have in this country.

[kcr]

147. Okay. But that's if.

But strangers hacked and stole her pictures. The response is that she's legally a child pornographer too because of this. She didn't do anything, here. They did.

[AngryAmish]

155. We don't know if they were hacked or sent.

She denied they were real for a few days. She could have sent them to someone and they gave them to someone else. Either way, she was betrayed.

I also don't know if they are child pornography. I think there is a safe harbor for naked pictures of kids that are not meant to titillate. If they are just naked pictures of her they may not be pornographic. I think...and I really may be wrong here...there needs to be lewd acts portrayed in order for it to be child pornography.

also on edit: did she take the pictures herself or did another person take the pics?

[PeaceNikki]

156. Her last and only statements were that they were fake.

Photos alleging to be more than 100 celebrity women were released as part of a 'game' in which the hackers collectively tried to get into the accounts of these women and some were rewarded with money (bitcoins) for finding 'gold'. Some are very likely not who they claim to be. Some definitively are.

Dozens of lawyers are working on this. Several takedown letters have been successful based on copyright claims. McKayla has only been 18 for 8 months. It's safe to assume the images taken on cell phones contain metadata that includes "date taken". It seems incredibly easy to state and effective to tell these sites that, if the images are real, she was underage in them. Her attorney carefully worded the letter to state that she was under 18 when the photos were taken. That doesn't mean that they are her, but if they are, they are child porn. Even if they aren't her, what they allege to BE is. Any website run by someone with even half a brain (even really seedy sites) do not want to play around with the possibility of child pornography so they take them down.

They may be her, they may not be her, but it doesn't matter.

[kcr]

161. We don't know if she's ever robbed a house.

We don't know if she's ever committed tax fraud.

[Xithras]

83. Potentially, but there is no moral equivalence between the two.

Here in California, where I (and Maroney, for what it's worth) live, it is a crime for two people under the age of 18 to have sex. There are no Romeo & Juliet laws in this state so, according to the letter of the law, two 17 year old kids are committing a crime if they strip down and do the deed.

Prosecuting a 17 year old for taking a nude selfie is the moral equivalent of prosecuting a 17 year old for having sex. Could you do it? Legally, yes. Should you do it? Only a tiny minority generally think so. Normal people look at it as a harmless and victimless crime, and prosecutors who spend their time hunting down horny teenagers tend to lose their jobs rather quickly.

The people trading her pictures, on the other hand, are fapping to child porn. They're the moral, ethical and legal equivalent to a 40 year old man standing outside the window watching the two 17 year olds have sex while he masturbates in the bushes. They are not harmless, they DO create victims, and most people agree that masturbatory voyeurs who like to diddle themselves to photos of underage girls should be locked up.

There is no equivalence between the two crimes.

[tridim]

106. Don't ever search for "naturist" on Google images.

Because the non-illegal, non-porn you will see in the results may cause massive vapors.

Images of naked bodies aren't automatically considered porn unless you're a religious RW whacko. I'm assuming she didn't take the picture thinking she was making child porn or adult porn, she was just being human.

[rdking647]

84. one of the websites said the immediatly took down the pictures

one thing most porn sites dont want to deal with is any chance of child porn. the porn sites are very profitable and child porn means the death of teh site so they dont mess around

[Sheldon Cooper]

91. I hope the skeevy pervs who gleefully downloaded the pics

so they can have something new to rub their dicks to are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Payback, losers.

[kcr]

92. Can you believe the posts in this thread about prosecuting her, too?

It's impossible to have any discussion on DU about anything like this and have it derp free.

[Sheldon Cooper]

94. Sure I can believe it.

Victim blaming is pretty common here, actually.

[ann---]

103. As should

the perv who TOOK the nude pictures of an underage child in the first place.

[Atman]

203. I got infamously banned and harrassed on DU for using the word "skanky."

Apparently, if you're referring to a female, such terms are verboten. But it's okay to call men "skeevy pervs." Can someone please explain the difference?

[Kablooie]

107. She should be arrested for having child porn on her iPhone!

[kcr]

113. Well she could! It's the law!

Yuh huh, it is too the law.

[Orrex]

127. Interesting

Link HERE.

Application of Child Pornography Laws to Selfies

If an adult takes a sexually explicit picture of a minor and shares it via social media or text message, that adult will likely have run afoul of some child pornography laws. But what about a minor who takes selfies and sends them discreetly to another teen? What if the receiver then forwards the photos to others? Have they violated any laws? In many states, the answer is yes.

Though their laws were created to protect minors from exploitation caused by others, states are prosecuting minors under child pornography statutes for sending nude or otherwise lurid self-portraits, even when the minors sent the selfies without coercion. The common quirk in the laws is that there is no exception for taking or distributing sexually explicit pictures of oneself. Thus, a high school student sending a racy seflie to a boyfriend or girlfriend could subject both themselves and the receiver to prosecution for child pornography. If the picture makes its way around other social circles through online or direct sharing, anyone who received or distributed the photo could also find themselves open to charges.

[kcr]

144. Yes, and if you find evidence that she sent them to someone you'll have a point n/t

[Orrex]

153. Highlighted for emphasis.

The common quirk in the laws is that there is no exception for [font size=5][font color="Green"]taking[/font][/font] or distributing sexually explicit pictures of oneself.

Based upon this, I infer that the taking of such selfies is problematic in its own right.

[kcr]

159. You're free to infer whatever you like

But nowhere does it say that it's illegal to merely possess pics of oneself. The article makes clear that they prosecute teens who have texted naked selfies to others. Your leap of logic is the same as claiming that it is illegal to masturbate because prosecutors charge underage sex.

[Orrex]

162. It's nothing at all like that.

The text is straightforward and unambigiuous.

I understand that you don't like the law, and that you're eager to paint this as a pure case of "victim blaming," but it's simply not that straightforward.

If it is illegal for a minor to take "nude or lurid self portraits," and if Ms. Maroney took such self portraits while she was a minor, then she broke the law. Your opinion of my inference is irrelevant.

Of course, the does nothing to diminish the fact that she is still the victim of hacking and theft. You seem fundamentally unable to accept that a victim of one crime might be independently guilty of another.

Your leap of logic is the same as claiming that it is illegal to masturbate because prosecutors charge underage sex.

Your fondness for discussing masturbation is not in question. However, by your same "logic," it must be legal for a man to masturbate in front of a dozen pre-teen girls simply because it's legal for him to masturbate in the privacy of his home.

Why are you so selectively unable to make distinctions based on context?

[kcr]

164. You highlighted it yourself. Sexually explicit pictures.

If she owns the picture of herself and it's her own body, a body that she's seen before because she looks in the mirror, how does that meet the definition of sexually explicit? Nowhere in your link does it say it's illegal for a minor to take a picture of themselves nude. It doesn't. You are inferring that. Is it illegal for them to look at themselves in the mirror nude? No. They get in trouble when they sext them to someone else. That's when it becomes sexually explicit. That is when they and the person they sexted them to both get snagged under the law, because the law makes no exceptions about who sends the pictures.

[Orrex]

175. It also says "nude or lurid"

Your question about the mirror is irrelevant, as you surely must realize.

If she took the pictures and if she was a minor at the time, then she took nude pictures of a minor, meaning that she manufactured child pornography, which is a crime. And at least while they were in the camera, she was in possession of child pornography, which is a crime.

You're right about the additional crimes if she transmitted the images, but for now we have no evidence that she did so. It's clear that the hackers have done so, so we can hope that they'll be charged accordingly.

[kcr]

185. How can a picture of oneself be lurid?

The question about the mirror isn't irrelevant. The body in the picture is the same one a person sees in the mirror when they take a picture of themselves. Do you think people should avert their eyes when they're in front of a mirror naked?

[abelenkpe]

133. Blaming the victims is seriously f'd up. nt