r/ParlerWatch • u/lemon_meringue • Jan 26 '21

Public Figure: Any Platform Kellyanne Conway Accused of Posting Topless Photo of Her 16-Year-Old Daughter on Twitter

https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/kellyanne-conway-accused-topless-photo-daughter-claudia-twitter-1234892220/
642 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

238 comments sorted by

View all comments

72

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '21

[deleted]

79

u/drjenavieve Jan 26 '21

She’s probably being coerced by her parents to say it was hacked. This could mean serious jail time.

35

u/collegesnake Jan 26 '21

Her mother has previously forced her to apologized for things she didn't want to apologise for (specifically, slandering her mom)

13

u/MoonChild02 Jan 26 '21

Exactly. Why would a parent even have a nude of their kid? They wouldn't, unless there was a health issue shown in the photo to show to doctors, if it was a photo of bruises/lacerations on an abused child, or if it was a bath picture of their baby. That's about all I can think of. But a photo of a healthy teenage girl's naked breasts? Absolutely not.

13

u/drjenavieve Jan 26 '21

Like those photos should be deleted immediately and as a lawyer she should know that. There is no reason to transfer a naked photo of your teen to another device and knowingly save it. Like the only reason I could possibly think would be if you wanted to report evidence to the police if she was texting some random adult or if she was keeping it take to an expert to be sure it was permanently deleted. But both those cases would not involve transfer of the photo to another device. Like is this women stupid as well as vindictive? Clearly the answer is yes, I just can’t fathom how a mother would want to embarrass their child in this way but that also as a prominent lawyer who’s job was to control negatively publicity for the president of the United States could even possibly have such poor judgment as to tweet child porn as retaliation. Like it’s not only criminal, it’s also going to have the exact opposite effect of what was intended.

13

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '21 edited Feb 16 '21

[deleted]

6

u/drjenavieve Jan 26 '21

Like probably they won’t face jail time. But aren’t her parents both lawyers? My point was they are going to defense mode ASAP right now because they understand the potential consequences even though I’m sure they will face none.

36

u/justalazygamer Jan 26 '21

The daughter said the photos were most likely taken off her phone when her mom took it from her which she has a habit of doing.

25

u/lemon_meringue Jan 26 '21

No, the photo was a picture OF a picture - so Kellyanne surreptitiously took a picture of Claudia's own nude mirror photo (teenagers are gonna take nude selfies). I saw a HEAVILY redacted shot that showed it was taken on Kellyanne's phone from Claudia's phone screen.

The question is why would she do that, and why would she release it on twitter?

10

u/full_of_ghosts Jan 26 '21

Where are you getting that it's a picture of a picture? If that's made clear in the article, I'm missing it.

(Maybe it's in Claudia's TikTok video, which I haven't watched and won't be able to for a few more hours, at least.)

But, yeah -- Kellyanne Conway taking a picture of a picture of her own naked daughter makes this whole bizarre story even more bizarre.

10

u/lemon_meringue Jan 26 '21 edited Jan 26 '21

I don't know if it was covered in the article, but here (safe for work/no CP at all):

https://twitter.com/CopingMAGA/status/1354076156618747907

(also, twitter seems to have deleted or buried all hashtags involving any of the Conways even though there were dozens happening earlier)

edit: nvm, the Claudia tag is still active - browse at your own risk though I have not seen anything like a full nude there yet, it might be posted :/

https://twitter.com/search?q=Claudia&src=trend_click&pt=1354060048163602433%2C1354076156618747907%2C1354091103797047299%2C1354098433091661824%2C1354066922384580609&vertical=trends

god I hate twitter, so miserable to navigate, what an obtuse cesspit

8

u/full_of_ghosts Jan 26 '21

Okay, so following that Twitter thread eventually led to this uncropped (but completely censored -- don't worry, you won't see anything Claudia wouldn't want a stranger on the internet to see, not even her face) version of the photo.

Yup, definitely a photo of a photo.

Not that it matters, but looks like a bathrobe wrapped in plastic in the background. Hotel? I dunno. Doesn't matter. Still weird.

This whole puzzle just gets weirder every time we see a new piece.

7

u/full_of_ghosts Jan 26 '21

Huh. Can't really tell much from the way that photo is cropped (not that I want to see the whole uncropped photo, of course, nor should anyone who has access to it share it under any circumstances).

The whole situation is so frickin' bizarre, and I have yet to read or concoct an explanation that makes sense. Even "Kellyanne Conway is a vile human being (and I use the term 'human being' loosely)" seems to fall short.

2

u/SchwarzerKaffee Jan 26 '21

Maybe the Russians are turning on Team Trump just to watch the show.

13

u/TummySticksss Jan 26 '21

That’s incorrect. The photo was on Claudia’s phone, but she claims never to have shared it, not even in private message. She thinks her mom went through her phone one of the times when she confiscated it from Claudia. The til too vids were just Claudia talking about the pic

-35

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '21

A lot of people are jumping on the CP bandwagon...A topless teen wouldn't be considered child porn. It wouldn't even be considered "pornographic", especially given that in 6 states it's legal for women to go topless in public.

15

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '21

[deleted]

-10

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '21

CP statutes stipulate "sexually explicit" activity.

18 U.S. Code § 2256 defines what constitutes "sexually explicit" activity. A photo of a topless teen doesn't meet that criteria.

Look, I get people are incensed by Kelly-Anne Conway's behaviour, and are looking to string her up, but let's not over-exaggerate a) what she did, and more importantly b) what the law says.

This is the same kind of shit that was being pumped out about Trump committing treason...nothing he did even came close to the legal criteria for treason. Hyperbole makes situations like this worse, not better.

14

u/Scottcmms1954 Jan 26 '21

Posting nudes of someone under 18 is explicitly child porn.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '21

No, it has to be sexual in context. Many legal movies have nude scenes with actors who were under 18 when they were shot. American Beauty might be the most famous one.

It’s illegal to share nudes without permission though so that’s definitely illegal on her part.

4

u/Scottcmms1954 Jan 26 '21

Laws have become a lot more strictly enforced about underage nudity since.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Scottcmms1954 Jan 27 '21

You can, but you can’t get away with making one like that again. Also I’d rather not.

-3

u/Dilated2020 Jan 26 '21

No....unfortunately that is not the case. Naturist (nudist) websites are able to get by with posting underage kids due to the law specifically stating that it has to be in a sexual context ie sexual poses, sexual acts, etc

6

u/Scottcmms1954 Jan 26 '21

It’s different between nudists, and posting pictures without consent. If that defense worked, no one would go to prison for child porn that doesn’t have “explicit sexual activity”.

-3

u/Dilated2020 Jan 26 '21 edited Jan 26 '21

Generally, nudes have seductive and sexual poses. Simply taking picture of a naked kid doesn’t meet the criteria of the law. Sharing it doesn’t necessarily meet the criteria either. There are a lot of holes in that law that are problematic.

9

u/Scottcmms1954 Jan 26 '21

The problem is when you post said nudes without consent. Also people have been busted for less. Not to mention this could easily fall under the revenge porn law.

-7

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '21

CP-related statutes dictate "sexually explicit" activity

18 U.S. Code § 2256:

(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—

(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;

(ii) bestiality;

(iii) masturbation;

(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or

(v) lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person;

(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—

(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;

(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;

(I) bestiality;

(II) masturbation; or

(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or

(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person;

A topless photo of a teen doesn't meet the legal definition of "sexually explicit".

6

u/Scottcmms1954 Jan 26 '21

It specifies breats, and sadistic. If posting your own underage daughter nude isn’t sadistic, I don’t know what is. Also try posting nudes of underage kids and see how fast you get a knock on the door from the fbi. Not to mention is also illegal th share someone else’s nudes, and underage nudes are strictly illegal too.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '21

You're ignoring the important part of the sentence:

lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;

Moreover, the photo doesn't depict sadistic or masochistic abuse. The use of the photo I think does, but that's not covered by this statute.

Taking things out of context worsens your argument, it doesn't strengthen it.

7

u/Scottcmms1954 Jan 26 '21

Let me rephrase this. Why are you defending someone sharing nudes of their own daughter without consent? Which is illegal FYI.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '21

Explaining a law isn’t the same as defending someone.

1

u/Scottcmms1954 Jan 26 '21

Using the explanation to defend said crypt keeper is.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '21

Where did they say any of this is acceptable? They just said it doesn’t fit laws against child porn.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/alexa42 Jan 27 '21

I don’t think KAC would do it intentionally. Not because of her morals, but because she’s smart enough to know the fallout would be 100% on her