GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

kronic · 09-02-2014, 07:20 PM

It's pretty funny watching some of the backtracking going on...

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...d-from-reddit/

-"McKayla Maroney told her fans that nude pics allegedly hacked from her account over the weekend were not her at all."

-"The Olympic gymnast said the photos of her were fakes, tweeting: ?the fake photos of me are crazy!! was trying to rise above it all, and not give ?the creator? the time of day?? She added a photo of Jesus to the post with the caption ?You sir, need Jesus.? "

But THEN...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-Mckayla.html

-"McKayla Maroney's lawyers confirm that the photos of Maroney were taken when she was under 18-years-old"

---------------------------------------------------------

So, this young lady's lawyers have come up with a great reason to take down her pictures...she was underage. That they may fall into the category of "art" as opposed to child pornography is topic for another discussion. None of the other high profile actresses have this chip to play so it's one that's certainly going to garner her some sympathy.

BUT, if they're playing this card, shouldn't SHE be subjected to charges of possession of child pornography?

http://www.business2community.com/so...769012#!bOR7gm

http://www.njlawattorney.com/blog/20...-charges.shtml

Or will McKayla get off because she's "famous" and a "victim"?

09-02-2014, 07:20 PM
kronic Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 964	It's pretty funny watching some of the backtracking going on... http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...d-from-reddit/ -"McKayla Maroney told her fans that nude pics allegedly hacked from her account over the weekend were not her at all." -"The Olympic gymnast said the photos of her were fakes, tweeting: ?the fake photos of me are crazy!! was trying to rise above it all, and not give ?the creator? the time of day?? She added a photo of Jesus to the post with the caption ?You sir, need Jesus.? " But THEN... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-Mckayla.html -"McKayla Maroney's lawyers confirm that the photos of Maroney were taken when she was under 18-years-old" --------------------------------------------------------- So, this young lady's lawyers have come up with a great reason to take down her pictures...she was underage. That they may fall into the category of "art" as opposed to child pornography is topic for another discussion. None of the other high profile actresses have this chip to play so it's one that's certainly going to garner her some sympathy. BUT, if they're playing this card, shouldn't SHE be subjected to charges of possession of child pornography? http://www.business2community.com/so...769012#!bOR7gm http://www.njlawattorney.com/blog/20...-charges.shtml Or will McKayla get off because she's "famous" and a "victim"?