McKayla Maroney -- I Was Underage in Hacked Nude Photos

[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.