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