Large Scale Hack Results in Nude Photes of Celebrities on the Internet

[derspiess]

I think the general feel at this point is that Lena Dunham is so obnoxious.

So you've turned on her?

[Barrister]

It's also worth pointing out that not every picture of a bare breast or genitals of someone <18 constitutes "child pornography".  Again language will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but here the picture has to have a picture of someone "depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity" or the "dominant characteristic... is the depiction for a sexual purpose of a sexual organ or the anal region".

[Berkut]

Hmmm, so what do we think about Lena's decision that "Hackers are sex offenders".

I dunno, I think they are just hackers.

She should say they are worse than Hitler.

[garbon]

I think the general feel at this point is that Lena Dunham is so obnoxious.

So you've turned on her?

I haven't liked her for quite some time. Watching a show doesn't mean you have like its creator.

[grumbler]

Do you understand, grumbler?

Nope.  But my failure to understand is a reflection of my apathy in regards to the situation, not a reflection of the situation.

[derspiess]

Okay.

[alfred russel]

It's also worth pointing out that not every picture of a bare breast or genitals of someone <18 constitutes "child pornography".  Again language will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but here the picture has to have a picture of someone "depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity" or the "dominant characteristic... is the depiction for a sexual purpose of a sexual organ or the anal region".

BB, have you ever heard a case where one of the sites pushing young looking girls turned to have actual underage girls?

It must have happened at some point. Could/have they just gone after the whole client list of the website? I'd love to hear the customers defense: "sure they advertised that she looked 13, and I joined the website because she looked 13, and okay so she turned out to be 13, but I thought she was 18".

And before you try to turn this on me, I've never subscribed to any porn website of any type. 

[Barrister]

It's also worth pointing out that not every picture of a bare breast or genitals of someone <18 constitutes "child pornography".  Again language will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but here the picture has to have a picture of someone "depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity" or the "dominant characteristic... is the depiction for a sexual purpose of a sexual organ or the anal region".

BB, have you ever heard a case where one of the sites pushing young looking girls turned to have actual underage girls?

It must have happened at some point. Could/have they just gone after the whole client list of the website? I'd love to hear the customers defense: "sure they advertised that she looked 13, and I joined the website because she looked 13, and okay so she turned out to be 13, but I thought she was 18".

And before you try to turn this on me, I've never subscribed to any porn website of any type. 

Note - I have prosecuted the grand total of 1 child porn case, and that had somewhat unique facts (over 18 boyfriend took nude pictures of his 16 year old girlfriend.  When they broke up, he printed out the pictures and put them up on lightpoles in their small town with writing calling her a slut and a whore.  He started shitting himself when we charged him with distributing child porn).

Whether or not the girl was under 18, and more importantly looked under 18, is a huge part of a child porn prosecution.  It is an element of the offence that we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  Because in order to be found guilty you must have both a guilty act (the actus reus) and a guilty mind (the mens rea), in order to be found guilty of possessing child porn we must show you intended to possess pictures of underage girls.

From what I understand in hearing lectures by child porn prosecutors they will have the absolutely delightful job of having to review some or all of the pics in question to try and determine whether it constitutes child porn.  If there's an unsourced pictures of a girl who looks like she may or may not be under 18, it's not enough for a prosecution.

Often times though while there may be some (or even a lot) of ambiguous photos, there are some where the nature of the picture is crystal clear.

I'm pretty sure a subscriber to "Barely Legal Teens" or whatever would be in the clear, even if the model later turned out to be 15.  The site does state that the girls are "legal" (even if only barely).  The site itself however would potentially be in a lot more trouble however.

Going back to McKayla Maroney however, she only just turned 18.  She's a public figure, and her age is easily discernable.  Someone with nude McKayla pics probably doesn't have a "but I thought she was 18" defence.

[alfred russel]

The McKayla situation is interesting in the sense that I believe her people first said, "not me, fakes" and then "ok, real, but under 18". Was she really under 18 or is that the strategy being used to stop distribution and close off criticism?

I don't think I'd want to be making such a case in front of a jury though. 

[Ideologue]

I was just taking the piss, Beeb.

Btw it's funny how Lena Dunham is injecting herself into this incident.  Almost like she's pissed nobody hacked her iCloud account to see her gross pictures.

She's not bad looking, Siegebreaker.  She's just kind of heavy and not beautiful.  That doesn't make someone gross.

I don't know how I got the reputation for being a pig when you people are the comparators.

[derspiess]

Uh, no she's gross.  It's not even that she's fat-- I can appreciate a voluptuous woman-- just that the weight is all distributed wrong. And her face is below average.

If someone is going to be naked on TV there's a certain responsibility to look at least decent.

[viper37]

Would McKayla Maroney need to register as a sex offender (after repaying her debt to society, of course)?

I would like to hear Beeb's take on this.

Why?

It is not illegal for someone underage to take pictures of themselves.

How is this even remotely relevant?

I have to admit I am kind of baffled at this line of reasoning.

It is going to depend on the specific wording of the local law in question, but in Canada there's nothing that would specifically exempt a person from a charge of producing child pornography if they take a picture of themselves.

HOWEVER

laying such a charge would be so phenomenally stupid no cop would ever charge it.  If some cop was that stupid no prosecutor would ever prosecute it.  And if you had a both a phenomenally stupid cop and a phenomenally stupid prosecutor, no judge or jury would ever convict.

even if there was a phenomenally stupid judge or jury?

[Ed Anger]

I was just taking the piss, Beeb.

Btw it's funny how Lena Dunham is injecting herself into this incident.  Almost like she's pissed nobody hacked her iCloud account to see her gross pictures.

She's not bad looking, Siegebreaker.  She's just kind of heavy and not beautiful.  That doesn't make someone gross.

I don't know how I got the reputation for being a pig when you people are the comparators.

[CountDeMoney]

Uh, no she's gross.  It's not even that she's fat-- I can appreciate a voluptuous woman-- just that the weight is all distributed wrong. And her face is below average.

If someone is going to be naked on TV there's a certain responsibility to look at least decent.

I concur with the esteemed Amish gentleman.  I don't need to see chicks on premium cable that I can see every day in traffic.  It's about escaping reality, not reinforcing it.

[garbon]

Uh, no she's gross.  It's not even that she's fat-- I can appreciate a voluptuous woman-- just that the weight is all distributed wrong. And her face is below average.

If someone is going to be naked on TV there's a certain responsibility to look at least decent.

I concur with the esteemed Amish gentleman.  I don't need to see chicks on premium cable that I can see every day in traffic.  It's about escaping reality, not reinforcing it.

Of course, Girls isn't really a show about fantasy and escapism.