The McKayla Maroney Nudes Are From When She Was Underage, So Great Job, Pervs

McKayla Maroney is not impressed winning silver medal at London Summer Olympics August 2012Just when I thought it was impossible to be any more disgusted with the hacker who stole personal, intimate photos of female celebrities and sold them to 4chan users for Bitcoins, it turns out that some of the photos of McKayla Maroney were taken when she was underage. COME ON MAN.

You guys remember McKayla, right? She’s that American gymnast who won the silver medal in London in 2012, and also got super famous for the photo of her on the podium making a disappointed face that turned into the ‘McKayla Is Not Impressed’ meme. Well guess what? McKayla is not impressed by your pervy ways and your inability to do math (she was sixteen at the Olympics just two years ago, my friends), because she’s been having her rep reach out to the porn companies who reposted the image to inform them that since she was underage in the photos (she just turned eighteen last December), that they’re officially in possession of child porn!

As are any of you who saved these photos to your own computer — please congratulate your hard drive on its successful download of several felonies! You should be very proud.

Just kidding, you shouldn’t be even a little bit at all, as the original posters of this material are now discovering. BuzzFeed noticed that moderators on Reddit’s ‘The Fappening’ subreddit have been panicking, as has anyone involved in the /b/ thread on 4chan, frantically warning users to delete the incriminating content:

The site admins have let us know that McKayla Maroney was underage in the photos as well and that we need to remove them. If we don’t remove them, then this subreddit will most likely be banned (very quickly).

If you are skeptical in any way, just remember that it is better to be safe than sorry.

Due to this, we will be removing any and all things that contain their images. It is considered CP (Child Pornography), and breaks reddit’s site-wide rules (in addition to international law, age of consent is completely different than child pornography), and will get this subreddit banned if we were to allow them to be posted.

Did you catch that? The fact that this is child pornography? Just a reminder again that it’s CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, you slobs. Not that you needed any other reasons not to download stolen content exploiting these women’s naked bodies, but apparently some of you needed other reasons. So here one is now. BE BETTER PEOPLE.

(Photo: Ronald Martinez / Getty Images Sport)

Share This Post:
    • Ninks

      Yeah, they’re not disgusted that they’ve downloaded child pornography, they’re worried that they’re dumb thread will be deleted. What a charming bunch of dickheads.

    • M_G

      Oh good. Something new and awful about this story. And here I was worried that we’d already scraped the bottom of the barrel.

    • Nbl

      I just throw up in my mouth a little. My god, are people really this stupid? Do they not realize that it takes all of three seconds to type “pornhub” into their browsers and get access to THOUSANDS of free videos and pictures of where the participants are legal age and have given permission? What is wrong with people?!?

      • M_G

        “What is wrong with people?!?” You pour the wine and I’ll bring the pizza….we’re going to be here a while if you want a comprehensive list.

      • Nbl

        I’m so down with a wine, pizza, and bitch fest.

      • Alexis Rhiannon

        I am joining.

    • Kiki

      I agree, one hundred percent, that these people who released these intimate photos of these women are wrong and disgusting and I hope the thieves are charged with the law’s fullest extent.
      However, why was an underage girl taking nude photos? I think it’s sad that girls, in this day and age, are in such a rush to “grow up”. I think it’s wonderful if a girl or woman is comfortable with her body, but when you’re underage, not just with how young you are, but how mature you are, you need to be, in my opinion, more careful with the choices in which you express yourself and your body.

    • FemelleChevalier

      Hmmm. Did McKayla deleted those pics two years ago or did she held on to it until the hacking? And would that be considered as possession of child porn on her part and possibly to those trusted people she may or may not have sent it to? Just curious.

    • William Campbell

      Wow, underaged and posing in sexually suggestive poses? Mercy! Ya know, the photo has to show the subject in a sexually suggestive pose to be illegal. So I guess Ms. Maroney was throwing out gash shots? Wow…..

      • Alexis Rhiannon

        Someone has lied to you.

      • William Campbell

        No one lied madam. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the law. Simply a photo of a nude underaged person is NOT Child Pornography. USC 2256 of Title 18 “..Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive.”

      • William Campbell

        See that word “MAY” yeah, that’s the key word in the LAW, not in what you THINK

      • M_G

        Can you also site any cases in which pictures depicting naked children were not deemed sexually explicit? Because despite the “MAY” in the law, in practice, possession of pictures of naked children seems like something the courts frown upon.

      • William Campbell

        I agree with you. Everyone frowns upon it, however the law is written in very clear plain language. A picture of a nude under aged child is not child pornography as defined by the current federal law. I am only pointing this out. I am not by any means endorsing images of this type. Perhaps you could find out if any such cases exist as you requested. I have no need to know such information.

      • M_G

        Actually, the part of the law you’re quoting does not support your statement. As you pointed out, as per the written law, a picture of a nude minor may (or conversely, may not) be deemed child pornography. This leads it open to subjectivity. Your claim is that a picture of a nude minor does NOT constitute child pornography, and the law doesn’t support this claim because the possibility exists that it WILL constitute child pornography (which is, in fact, how the courts generally rule, which I tried to point out in my first comment and don’t know of a single court case which would support your position).

      • William Campbell

        I find people that start off with “Actually” are actually dumb as fuck. I give less than a shit what you fucking think clown. I’m telling you what is.You can continue to live in your little fantasy world. The Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions, not just the one I supplied to your lazy ass. I’m done. Please chastise me once more, so we can be done with this time wasting conversation. Good day.

      • M_G

        So this is your idea of not being a dick, huh? Interesting. Hooray for you for finding a case (also, good to know you’re backing your claim on the case of a child rapist). This STILL doesn’t prove your point, because if you had bothered to read my response, the law is written subjectively. So you’re still wrong. Let me know if you need me to explain it to you further.

      • William Campbell

        I broke protocol here M_G. I’m not trying to be a dick. I’m trying to inform people of something I BELIEVE they are not aware of. That being, nude images of children standing there does not constitute Child Pornography.

      • M_G

        Oh no worries!! I know you’re not trying to be a dick (BELIEVE me, there are enough trolls here who do). I’m just not sure I agree with your interpretation of the law (see below).

      • M_G

        Based on your responses below, I think you actually have a problem grasping this concept, too.

      • Laughable

        Bully for you for knowing how to Google, you pretentious know-nothing. I bet you’re SUPER proud of yourself.

      • photog

        William Campbell is correct. Nudity in and of itself does not make it child porn. It’s all about the intent of the photo and whether it is deemed sexually suggestive. Conversely, a sexually suggestive photo that is NOT nude CAN also be considered child porn. For example, a close up on the crotch wearing a swimsuit would probably be considered very suggestive and pornographic,
        M_G does have a point though, in that it’s somewhat subjective and open to interpretation. The individual judges view on what is or isn’t suggestive makes the difference. You could show a borderline picture to 100 judges and get a 50-50 response on whether or not it’s porn.
        And for that reason, I never do photo sessions with anyone under 18. Not worth the risk of being branded for life because of differing opinions.

      • William Campbell

        By the way. I am with you on these fools stealing these images. They should be punished yes indeed.

    • Apophis99

      Dumbass teen deserves it! Goes around preaching Jesus while taking self poon shots and uploading them where hackers can find them.

    • Man_of_Sin

      TMZ interviewed her. She doesn’t seem upset with her smiling and laughing.

    • Pingback: Jennifer Lawrence Addresses Nude Photo Leak In Vanity Fair()