WAG Mckayla Maroney/gymnastike

[Canadian_gym_mom]

I still do not see what this has to do with McKayla. She was not "sexting" -- She did not send these pictures to anyone.

Because it is illegal to "possess" indecent pictures of anyone under 18 even if they are of yourself.

 

[gasrgoose]

USA gymnastics will probably not take kindly to a website that it grants press permissions to when said website posts links to nude photos of USAG's underage elite gymnasts.

Gymnastike makes it's money off the footage it records using press passes granted by USAG.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

USAG has shown in the past that it does not tolerate child abuse in any form. I bet @dunno is being very quiet about this for a good reason.

Agreed and if the photos are real then I doubt McKayla will wear a USA leo again.

 

[bogwoppit]

if the photos are real then I doubt McKayla will wear a USA leo again.

Even though there are nude photos of current US Elite male gymnasts all over the internet? That would seem a little odd, a little small minded. No?

 

[bogwoppit]

Because it is illegal to "possess" indecent pictures of anyone under 18 even if they are of yourself.

See, this is when I think laws get into silliness territory.

 

[wnl256]

Once again, I find it disturbing that people are now discussing? Advocating for? USA G'S punishment of a victim of a serious crime. I would rather discuss whether Gymnastike's agents can be prosecuted under relevant criminal statutes. Maroney likely has a good private cause of action against them.

I doubt that anyone here is actually advocating for a punishment from USAG. Quite the contrary, I think there are people here who fear it may happen, thus victimizing her a second time. That's what the discussion has been about.

I'm not sure Gymnastike can be prosecuted for criminal activity. But I would be quite content with USAG and NCAA severing ties with them. That would be a good outcome.

 

[Canadian_gym_mom]

See, this is when I think laws get into silliness territory.

How silly though? We have just been discussing how things are never really private. So those photos get stolen and you end up in the situation we are in right now. Do I think a teen should go to jail or be labelled as a sex offender for having nude selfies? No, of course not. But to make it a crime and perhaps make examples of a few people could discourage others. And especially if it is a public figure and supposed role model for young people.

 

[Terry]

See, this is when I think laws get into silliness territory.

I do not know the actual wording of the federal law and I do not have time to look it up -- but rest assured

Because it is illegal to "possess" indecent pictures of anyone under 18 even if they are of yourself.

The federal statute refers to "possession" and does not make an express exception for "possession of one's own images" but rest assured no minor has ever been prosecuted for being in possession of indecent pictures of themselves. Except perhaps in some cases of sexting. It is just plain silly to suggest that McKayla may have run afoul of criminal laws.

 

[Terry]

See, this is when I think laws get into silliness territory.

You have to look at the intent of the law -- laws are not interpreted to produce ridiculous results. A failure to expressly exempt one's own images taken when one is a minor does not mean that the law would be interpreted to mean that. It is not true that what McKayla did ran afoul of the law and this conversation maybe should stop.

 

[gasrgoose]

Even though there are nude photos of current US Elite male gymnasts all over the internet? That would seem a little odd, a little small minded. No?

Not at all to me. I don't know about male gymnasts nude photos. But it wouldn't bother me if they didn't allow male gymnasts who had nude photographs. They have the right to take these pictures, as long as they are of legal age. But they don't have a right to wear the USA leo. It is a privilege and with it comes responsibility.

 

[Terry]

You have to look at the intent of the law -- laws are not interpreted to produce ridiculous results. A failure to expressly exempt one's own images taken when one is a minor does not mean that the law would be interpreted to mean that. It is not true that what McKayla did ran afoul of the law and this conversation maybe should stop.

I do not mean the entire conversation, which is important, I just mean this specific aspect of it.

 

[Canadian_gym_mom]

I do not mean the entire conversation, which is important, I just mean this specific aspect of it.

I'm fine with that because it appears the US laws regarding this ar different than other places in the world.

 

[happychaos]

I do not know the actual wording of the federal law and I do not have time to look it up -- but rest assured

The federal statute refers to "possession" and does not make an express exception for "possession of one's own images" but rest assured no minor has ever been prosecuted for being in possession of indecent pictures of themselves. Except perhaps in some cases of sexting. It is just plain silly to suggest that McKayla may have run afoul of criminal laws.

Some states (maybe 20?) have special sexting laws. In the other states, sexting is handled under regular child p*** laws, which are very strict (most sexting cases result in plea deals). ALL states need sexting laws asap, because minors ARE being prosecuted for child p***. Most people would agree that sexting does not rise to the level of "real" child p***, but in most cases the law treats them the same.

If Makayla took the pics herself, and did not send them to anyone, she will be fine (although technically it is still illegal). If the pics were taken by someone else, that person has produced child p***, and if the pics were sent to someone else, that person has viewed child p***, and the sender has distributed child p***. All of these things can be very serious, legally.

As soon as Makayla said that she was under 18 when the pics were taken, websites rushed to take the pictures down. Not just to be nice, but because the laws governing child p*** are very, very strong.

 

[Terry]

Some states (maybe 20?) have special sexting laws. In the other states, sexting is handled under regular child p*** laws, which are very strict (most sexting cases result in plea deals). ALL states need sexting laws asap, because minors ARE being prosecuted for child p***. Most people would agree that sexting does not rise to the level of "real" child p***, but in most cases the law treats them the same.

If Makayla took the pics herself, and did not send them to anyone, she will be fine (although technically it is still illegal). If the pics were taken by someone else, that person has produced child p***, and if the pics were sent to someone else, that person has viewed child p***, and the sender has distributed child p***. All of these things can be very serious, legally.

As soon as Makayla said that she was under 18 when the pics were taken, websites rushed to take the pictures down. Not just to be nice, but because the laws governing child p*** are very, very strong.

Yes, and if i robbed a bank I would be in trouble. But the thing is I did not. And if a 5 year old is being exploited by adults and having indecent pictures taken and those pictures are placed in the 5 year olds hand he or she is in "possession" of them. Do you want to claim that the 5 year old is "technically" involved in illegal activity under the law? McKayla did not engage in illegal activity and this really should stop.

 

[happychaos]

Do you really think there are UNDERAGE, nude photos of male gymn

If USAG wants to start going after athletes who have taken spicy selfies, they will have a big hole to fill on the men's world's team.

Once again, I find it disturbing that people are now discussing? Advocating for? USA G'S punishment of a victim of a serious crime. I would rather discuss whether Gymnastike's agents can be prosecuted under relevant criminal statutes. Maroney likely has a good private cause of action against them.

Over 18= spicy selfie. Under 18= child p***. It is a hornets nest for USAG.

I don't know about Gymnastike. As I understand it, there were many websites that had the link(s) posted. I think that legally they are only going after the sites that actually had the pictures posted. From what I read, it will be very hard to win a case against even the sites that posted the pictures, so going after a site that merely posted a link seems like it would be impossible.

Bog explained that USAG severing it's ties with Gymnastike would essentially be the end for the site, so maybe that is what will happen.

 

[Terry]

And is anyone even clear that the content of these photos constitutes pornography? I have not seen them and do not want to, but my guess is they are not pornographic in the legal sense.

 

[bogwoppit]

And is anyone even clear that the content of these photos constitutes pornography? I have not seen them and do not want to, but my guess is they are not pornographic in the legal sense.

No I have not seen them, and I hope nobody here has either.

I also think that we have flogged the proverbial dead horse on this topic. but, my joy is that we all remained civil and explored the subject like the grown ups we are.

 

[happychaos]

Yes, and if i robbed a bank I would be in trouble. But the thing is I did not. And if a 5 year old is being exploited by adults and having indecent pictures taken and those pictures are placed in the 5 year olds hand he or she is in "possession" of them. Do you want to claim that the 5 year old is "technically" involved in illegal activity under the law? McKayla did not engage in illegal activity and this really should stop.

And is anyone even clear that the content of these photos constitutes pornography? I have not seen them and do not want to, but my guess is they are not pornographic in the legal sense.

I suspect they are, otherwise websites would not be rushing to take them down. Hopefully not though.

Terry, I promise that no one is making this stuff up. Teens are being prosecuted for sexting. In some cases, the teens are labeled "s** offenders" for life, which is a very, very heavy burden to bear. The legal implications from creating, distributing, or viewing child p*** can be very serious, even if it only involves two people, and even if they are both willing participants.

There was a case in the news a month or two ago about an underage teen being charged with felony child p*** for texting his also underage girlfriend nude pictures of himself.

This is why I said that every state needs sexting laws. Dealing with these cases as child p*** just doesn't fit.

 

[Terry]

I suspect they are, otherwise websites would not be rushing to take them down. Hopefully not though.

Terry, I promise that no one is making this stuff up. Teens are being prosecuted for sexting. In some cases, the teens are labeled "s** offenders" for life, which is a very, very heavy burden to bear. The legal implications from creating, distributing, or viewing child p*** can be very serious, even if it only involves two people, and even if they are both willing participants.

There was a case in the news a month or two ago about an underage teen being charged with felony child p*** for texting his also underage girlfriend nude pictures of himself.

This is why I said that every state needs sexting laws. Dealing with these cases as child p*** just doesn't fit.

But this has nothing to do with McKayla -- she was not sexting!!!! I am only saying that there is enough trouble about all of this -- why add more by suggesting she was doing something that she was not?

And as far as those photos being obscene in the legal sense -- the fact that websites rushed to take them down does not indicate they were. Not at all. Once people start getting "lawyer letters" referring to child pornography any rational person will err on the side of caution.

 

[NH~GymMom]

Depending on the state, laws for what constitutes can be very different and extremely vague. Girls have been prosecuted for pictures of themselves in sports bras, which arguably cover a lot more than many bathing suits!

That said, regardless of the contents of the photos, there is no proof that she distributed them to anyone. Also, just because she is suing does not indicate that the photos were not edited, just that the portions of her likeness that were stolen were from pictures taken when she was underage. So if, as she has said publically, the pictures are indeed fake, she still has legal bounds to sue if her face was photoshopped on them. And no, she couldn't be prosecuted for her face being photoshopped onto a nude body because she never had the nude picture in her possession, the person who did the photoshopping did.

 

[Terry]

Depending on the state, laws for what constitutes can be very different and extremely vague. Girls have been prosecuted for pictures of themselves in sports bras, which arguably cover a lot more than many bathing suits!

That said, regardless of the contents of the photos, there is no proof that she distributed them to anyone. Also, just because she is suing does not indicate that the photos were not edited, just that the portions of her likeness that were stolen were from pictures taken when she was underage. So if, as she has said publically, the pictures are indeed fake, she still has legal bounds to sue if her face was photoshopped on them. And no, she couldn't be prosecuted for her face being photoshopped onto a nude body because she never had the nude picture in her possession, the person who did the photoshopping did.

well, the initial comment referred to federal law. But I am not aware of any state in which girl in a sports bra would be considered obscene. If that were the case most of us would be in prison. Sending unwanted texts and behavior like that is in a completely different category. And that has nothing to do with what McKayla did.

Also, McKayla is not "suing." Having your attorneys write "lawyer letters" is not suing.

again, I respect everyone's opinion on this issue and the way we are discussing a heated topic with a good deal of civility. But I just wish we would be careful not to ramp things up.