Hacked nude celebrity photos may be child pornography

 

Child Porn claims to scare sites into taking down photos

Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney claimed her nude photos are child porn, to scare web sites into removing her photos. 

Maroney’s lawyers confirmed that the leaked nude images of the U.S. gymnast were taken at the time when she was not yet 18. This means that the people who are involved in the leak and those who are storing copies of the images on their PCs could face a lawsuit on child abuse  Tech Times

But: Children photographing themselves are child porn producers

Little was McKayla Maroney aware she was incriminating herself of a heinous crime: "McKayla Maroney may be a victim of the leaked photo scandal, but she could be facing felony charges for child pornography." [2].  Any 17 or under "child" that takes photo of herself in any indecent pose, is a producer of child pornography (sexting). And mere possession of child pornography is punishable up to life in prison [3] [4

Child pornography can be fully dressed photos of 17 year olds

Deliberately posed pictures of children [up to 17 years of age] fully clothed, partially clothed or naked can be child pornography. If the dirty mind of a district attorney or policeman officer considers baby’s pose indecent, then Family pictures of nude baby bath can cause ruinous child porn prosecution.

Use a Polaroid, not the "cloud"

"Stars who want to take nude photos without getting hacked: Use a Polaroid: To keep private pictures private, never upload them online."[Fox News].

 

Will anyone question the stupidity of child pornography laws?

Only Human-Stupidity dares to ridicule voodoo theory, to  denounce child porn hysteria in 70 posts, to cite Milton Diamond‘s peer reviewed research and infamous Rind Study 

  

Share

Author: Human-Stupidy (Admin)

Honest Research, Truth, Sincerity is our maxim. We hate politally correct falsification, falsification, repression of the truth, academic dishonesty and censorship.

3 thoughts on “Hacked nude celebrity photos may be child pornography”

  1. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Does anyone know what the difference is between pornography, erotica, art, and a run of the mill photo? Not the overly broad and convoluted/vaguely defined legal definition which hinges more on semantics rather than reality, but parameters that don’t leave room for ridiculous interpretation.

    The images in question are only as sexually suggestive as a viewer makes them. If the photos meet the minimum requirements for being classified as pornography and child porn at that, society needs to adjust it’s definition of pornography because I am fairly sure what most think of as pornographic doesn’t align with the content of the aforementioned imagery. Got to love that Mckayla is both the source of the problem and the solution. In other words she likely would have been better off keeping her mouth shut. Really nobody was even considering that she might be underage and I bet no one would have thought about that possibility if Mckayla had not incriminated herself.

Leave a Reply. We appreciate a discussion: if you disagree, your comment still is welcome.