General Discussion

TransitJohn

(6,937 posts)

192. Two reasons:

Reply to WinkyDink (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 3, 2014, 11:38 PM

Sep 2014

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

204 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

McKayla Maroney -- I Was Underage in Hacked Nude Photos [View all] jakeXT Sep 2014 OP

That changes things. TDale313 Sep 2014 #1

Just a thought MFrohike Sep 2014 #2

And to cover HER umm behind justiceischeap Sep 2014 #3

She'll be fine MFrohike Sep 2014 #7

No consent under age 18. nt TBF Sep 2014 #46

It doesn't work that way MFrohike Sep 2014 #140

Her celebrity status is irrelevant. The government isn't about to go after teens pnwmom Sep 2014 #68

Thank you! BlueCaliDem Sep 2014 #76

A lot of people seem to be enjoying viewing themselves as far superior pnwmom Sep 2014 #77

I agree. BlueCaliDem Sep 2014 #81

I bet those same people are still furious about THAT. pnwmom Sep 2014 #110

The disconnect is BlueCaliDem Sep 2014 #115

I've heard of a few cases like this in the past... Lancero Sep 2014 #165

Those cases weren't like this, because these women didn't "send" their photos to anyone. pnwmom Sep 2014 #169

Thank you! xmas74 Sep 2014 #168

Actually, they do upload themselves into the cloud. JaneyVee Sep 2014 #4

Without enabling the feature? MFrohike Sep 2014 #5

Ive had an iPhone for about 6 years bigwillq Sep 2014 #6

It's possible MFrohike Sep 2014 #8

You don't have to push a hundred buttons to get the phone working. Most settings are default, pnwmom Sep 2014 #69

Hyperbole MFrohike Sep 2014 #121

It didn't with my iPhone. That was the default setting. But it wouldn't matter anyway. pnwmom Sep 2014 #172

And I bet you are in the solid majority. All these DUers who condemn these young women pnwmom Sep 2014 #70

Ever been in an Apple store? herding cats Sep 2014 #143

Only to people who accept default installations TransitJohn Sep 2014 #14

Smart people... JaneyVee Sep 2014 #38

It's smarter to backup onto your on separate physical media you possess. TransitJohn Sep 2014 #39

I know a PhD engineer who backs his data up on a secure server pnwmom Sep 2014 #72

More power to him. TransitJohn Sep 2014 #190

How do you know your home wi fi can't be broken into? Or do you not have wi fi? nt pnwmom Sep 2014 #193

I don't. TransitJohn Sep 2014 #194

So? The world is set up to take advantage of people who are less smart. That doesn't mean pnwmom Sep 2014 #71

This Smart Person RobinA Sep 2014 #100

Try reading the instructions TransitJohn Sep 2014 #191

It's a ridiculous aspect of law that punishes a person for taking photos of themselves. NutmegYankee Sep 2014 #9

There's a thought MFrohike Sep 2014 #12

That sounds like one of the hypotheticals from hell hifiguy Sep 2014 #16

Haha MFrohike Sep 2014 #18

True, but that is the kind of framework hifiguy Sep 2014 #22

It does MFrohike Sep 2014 #23

You can place reasonable limitations, like no commercial use of underage photos. NutmegYankee Sep 2014 #17

Not a bad argument MFrohike Sep 2014 #21

If both parties consented to take it, it should be handled just like how we handle it for adults. NutmegYankee Sep 2014 #24

I disagree yeoman6987 Sep 2014 #154

Please explain how it helps society to destroy the future of a child? NutmegYankee Sep 2014 #174

Minors can't sign contracts, so the answer is no. n/t pnwmom Sep 2014 #73

Yes they can MFrohike Sep 2014 #117

Then they can't be prosecuted because they can simply disavow it. n/t pnwmom Sep 2014 #120

No MFrohike Sep 2014 #126

Absolutely disagree with you immensely yeoman6987 Sep 2014 #151

I'm sure a felony conviction and permanent registration as a sex offender will serve them well. NutmegYankee Sep 2014 #173

Totally! TransitJohn Sep 2014 #197

She still denies that they are her. PeaceNikki Sep 2014 #11

still? even after this tmz thing? big_dog Sep 2014 #31

Her last and only statements were that they were fake. PeaceNikki Sep 2014 #149

So she says she had child porn of someone else on her iPhone? Kablooie Sep 2014 #109

holy shit, really?? PeaceNikki Sep 2014 #123

Having not looked, I can't say content, but there are non-sex reasons to take unclothed pics. politicat Sep 2014 #19

That may be the case MFrohike Sep 2014 #30

They became porn when they were stolen and distributed without permission. politicat Sep 2014 #42

That's not how it works. LisaL Sep 2014 #47

By your logic all children who are victims would be convicted kcr Sep 2014 #52

The children who are victims aren't making the porn themselvs. LisaL Sep 2014 #55

You're the one claiming its porn in the first place kcr Sep 2014 #60

I am not claiming that they are porn. LisaL Sep 2014 #62

You have a funny way of not claiming they're porn kcr Sep 2014 #64

For the same reason that medical photos are not CP when in a file, but become so when politicat Sep 2014 #66

Do you have a link to that case? LisaL Sep 2014 #78

Still trying to find it, politicat Sep 2014 #148

Because the law can define anything as it wishes. Every naked picture of a child pnwmom Sep 2014 #79

Legally, child porn is defined by the nature of the photo. Nudity isn't even required. Xithras Sep 2014 #85

Isn't it considered ann--- Sep 2014 #102

Define. politicat Sep 2014 #111

I didn't blame the victim - please don't accuse me of that ann--- Sep 2014 #114

We're talking at cross purposes. politicat Sep 2014 #129

What is CP? ann--- Sep 2014 #141

Didn't Yale do it to incoming freshmen? Generic Other Sep 2014 #41

Fair point, also, the pictures might not have been taken/uploaded to "the cloud" from USA. MADem Sep 2014 #142

This message was self-deleted by its author big_dog Sep 2014 #20

I think that "Porn" is in the eye of the beholder. Why do you say she "did" the porn herself just world wide wally Sep 2014 #25

Not exactly MFrohike Sep 2014 #29

But she didn't distribute the photos. LisaL Sep 2014 #32

Wow... That is some fuckin stretch to blame a victim... Ohio Joe Sep 2014 #33

Those are our laws. LisaL Sep 2014 #45

Wow, that's terrible reading comprehension MFrohike Sep 2014 #132

"presumably broken"... Ohio Joe Sep 2014 #183

You know, forget it MFrohike Sep 2014 #186

I'm shocked... Ohio Joe Sep 2014 #189

When you're white knighting on that mighty high horse, MFrohike Sep 2014 #195

'white knighting'? Sheldon Cooper Sep 2014 #199

Why? MFrohike Sep 2014 #202

'white knighting'... Fucking MRA's... Ohio Joe Sep 2014 #200

Man, you need to grow up MFrohike Sep 2014 #201

Dead giveaway, isn't it? Sheldon Cooper Sep 2014 #204

She was a teen who didn't understand that her photos were hackable. pnwmom Sep 2014 #67

That isn't really a thought so much as not really getting it Kalidurga Sep 2014 #75

Hoo boy MFrohike Sep 2014 #134

Really. It's the Pauli principle in action. Chan790 Sep 2014 #157

It is sad Kalidurga Sep 2014 #171

Smug and humorless MFrohike Sep 2014 #177

Look you have a whole thread of people here who can explain things much better Kalidurga Sep 2014 #178

Whew MFrohike Sep 2014 #179

Somehow I don't care if people think I am arrogant or not. Kalidurga Sep 2014 #181

You have an odd sense of humor. n/t Tuesday Afternoon Sep 2014 #80

Agreed MFrohike Sep 2014 #138

Not amused, not impressed. NuclearDem Sep 2014 #87

Hahaha MFrohike Sep 2014 #139

And ann--- Sep 2014 #101

Oh, I see a "TMZ Exclusive" with details on a letter from her attorney. PeaceNikki Sep 2014 #10

Touche MFrohike Sep 2014 #13

So she posed because...? WinkyDink Sep 2014 #15

And you need to know because . . .? Lex Sep 2014 #26

It's in the news? WinkyDink Sep 2014 #118

Yes it is. Lex Sep 2014 #131

That was my answer, not a question. WinkyDink Sep 2014 #136

Because it was Tuesday mythology Sep 2014 #27

Excuse me, but did she not know her own age at the time? WinkyDink Sep 2014 #119

Because she felt like it? world wide wally Sep 2014 #34

Then don't cry "MINOR!" after the fact. WinkyDink Sep 2014 #122

Why not? world wide wally Sep 2014 #146

Her last and only statements were that they were fake. PeaceNikki Sep 2014 #150

Any number of reasons. xmas74 Sep 2014 #36

Good for you! But MM was under 18 and is now claiming her minor status. WinkyDink Sep 2014 #124

As she should. xmas74 Sep 2014 #166

Because it's her own damn body and she can do what she wants with it? NuclearDem Sep 2014 #40

Not if she was a minor. LisaL Sep 2014 #44

I think she has to distribute them kcr Sep 2014 #48

My undestanding is that production/possession is a crime even without distribution. LisaL Sep 2014 #53

Yes. But she didn't distribute them, see? n/t kcr Sep 2014 #54

Then she can not be charged with distribution. LisaL Sep 2014 #56

Why aren't other children charged then? kcr Sep 2014 #58

What other children? LisaL Sep 2014 #59

Oh, come on. What children could I be talking about? kcr Sep 2014 #61

I can't read your mind, so I have no clue. LisaL Sep 2014 #63

But she didn't send them kcr Sep 2014 #65

Isn't it a crime simply to possess nude pictures of minors? Orrex Sep 2014 #86

How did those possessing them come into possession? kcr Sep 2014 #88

Presumably Ms Maroney took some of them Orrex Sep 2014 #89

People come into possesion of child porn simply by taking pictures of themselves? kcr Sep 2014 #90

If they're nude pictures, then I believe that the answer is "possibly, yes." Orrex Sep 2014 #93

You believe magical transforming pictures are possible? kcr Sep 2014 #95

Don't try to make me think that you're an idiot. Orrex Sep 2014 #96

I don't care what you think of me kcr Sep 2014 #97

But no one here has asserted that that's the case, so why do you keep repeating it? Orrex Sep 2014 #98

That's funny considering you're the one who started this whole absurd chain kcr Sep 2014 #99

You asked a silly question and I gave a reasonable answer Orrex Sep 2014 #104

Did she sext the pictures? kcr Sep 2014 #105

It was a reasonable answer to your silly question Orrex Sep 2014 #108

Yes, I did kcr Sep 2014 #112

Where is your reply? Orrex Sep 2014 #116

It's been asked and answered multiple times in this thread kcr Sep 2014 #135

Well, here's why they ask the question: Orrex Sep 2014 #152

Doesn't say possessing pics of onself is illegal. kcr Sep 2014 #160

Perhaps you're not clear about what a "selfie" is. Orrex Sep 2014 #163

Perhaps you're not clear about what sexually explicit means kcr Sep 2014 #167

Again, you're trying to make me think you're an idiot. Orrex Sep 2014 #176

Your argument is fatally flawed by its absurdity kcr Sep 2014 #180

You are fixated on preposterous false equivalence Orrex Sep 2014 #182

They don't have to have anything to do with each other kcr Sep 2014 #184

Well, you've revealed yourself as a desperate liar. Orrex Sep 2014 #187

I'm lying by saying you said she could be charged. Then you go on and state she should be charged. kcr Sep 2014 #188

Well, see, the LAW would disagree with you----indeed, it is the very law that MM is now citing. And WinkyDink Sep 2014 #125

Kids do weird things - TBF Sep 2014 #50

Ah. So a minor can TAKE the photo, but if someone else SEES it, she can cry "Child porn!"? WinkyDink Sep 2014 #128

Because stealing it and distributing it so others can wank off to it shouldn't upset her one bit? kcr Sep 2014 #137

Because she wanted to. End of story. n/t pnwmom Sep 2014 #74

Fine and dandy! And the hacker "wanted to" hack! I don't GADamn, but for her to think of using the WinkyDink Sep 2014 #130

Not the same. The hacker "wanted to" break the law. The hacker is the criminal, pnwmom Sep 2014 #170

Should she have cried child porn before the pictures were stolen RedCappedBandit Sep 2014 #196

Common for high-level athletes actually. Chan790 Sep 2014 #158

Two reasons: TransitJohn Sep 2014 #192

I believe an underage head photoshopped onto an over-21 naked body is still considered child porn. Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #28

It's a legal gray area. Xithras Sep 2014 #37

Which means that everyone who viewed the photos committed a felony. Xithras Sep 2014 #35

And while we are at it, she can potentially be thrown in prison too. For LisaL Sep 2014 #43

Is she the one who distributed them? kcr Sep 2014 #49

But making child porn and possessing it is a crime. Even if photos aren't distributed. LisaL Sep 2014 #51

All children who are victims aren't convicted, no? kcr Sep 2014 #57

I agree with everything you said AngryAmish Sep 2014 #82

If she sent them to a boyfriend or girlfriend then she distributed them. AngryAmish Sep 2014 #145

Okay. But that's if. kcr Sep 2014 #147

We don't know if they were hacked or sent. AngryAmish Sep 2014 #155

Her last and only statements were that they were fake. PeaceNikki Sep 2014 #156

We don't know if she's ever robbed a house. kcr Sep 2014 #161

Potentially, but there is no moral equivalence between the two. Xithras Sep 2014 #83

Don't ever search for "naturist" on Google images. tridim Sep 2014 #106

one of the websites said the immediatly took down the pictures rdking647 Sep 2014 #84

I hope the skeevy pervs who gleefully downloaded the pics Sheldon Cooper Sep 2014 #91

Can you believe the posts in this thread about prosecuting her, too? kcr Sep 2014 #92

Sure I can believe it. Sheldon Cooper Sep 2014 #94

As should ann--- Sep 2014 #103

I got infamously banned and harrassed on DU for using the word "skanky." Atman Sep 2014 #203

She should be arrested for having child porn on her iPhone! Kablooie Sep 2014 #107

Well she could! It's the law! kcr Sep 2014 #113

Interesting Orrex Sep 2014 #127

Yes, and if you find evidence that she sent them to someone you'll have a point n/t kcr Sep 2014 #144

Highlighted for emphasis. Orrex Sep 2014 #153

You're free to infer whatever you like kcr Sep 2014 #159

It's nothing at all like that. Orrex Sep 2014 #162

You highlighted it yourself. Sexually explicit pictures. kcr Sep 2014 #164

It also says "nude or lurid" Orrex Sep 2014 #175

How can a picture of oneself be lurid? kcr Sep 2014 #185

Blaming the victims is seriously f'd up. nt abelenkpe Sep 2014 #133

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2014 #198