- May 26, 2011
- 1,247
- 1,150
Because it is illegal to "possess" indecent pictures of anyone under 18 even if they are of yourself.I still do not see what this has to do with McKayla. She was not "sexting" -- She did not send these pictures to anyone.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Because it is illegal to "possess" indecent pictures of anyone under 18 even if they are of yourself.I still do not see what this has to do with McKayla. She was not "sexting" -- She did not send these pictures to anyone.
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.
if the photos are real then I doubt McKayla will wear a USA leo again.
Because it is illegal to "possess" indecent pictures of anyone under 18 even if they are of yourself.
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.
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 assuredSee, this is when I think laws get into silliness territory.
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.Because it is illegal to "possess" indecent pictures of anyone under 18 even if they are of yourself.
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.See, this is when I think laws get into silliness territory.
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?
I do not mean the entire conversation, which is important, I just mean this specific aspect of it.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'm fine with that because it appears the US laws regarding this ar different than other places in the world.I do not mean the entire conversation, which is important, I just mean this specific aspect of it.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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?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.
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.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.