Federal Case Could Redefine What is Child Porn

Submitted by Curmudgeony on November 30, 2006 - 9:04pm
Topic: 
Censorship
Politics

Search Engines WEB reports an article from CNET news "he ran a business called Beautiful Super Models that charged $175 for portraits of aspiring models under 18 years old. Prosecutors acknowledge there's no evidence he has ever taken a single photograph of an'unclothed minor...his models struck poses that were illegally provocative. "The images charged are not legitimate child modeling, but rather lascivious poses one would expect to see in an adult magazine"

Comments

Submitted by Fang-Face on November 30, 2006 - 10:43pm.

Down the slippery slope and off to Hell in a handbasket.

What next, Amerika? Burkas for minors? Place yer bets here b'fore the winder closes. . . .

Submitted by mdoneil on December 1, 2006 - 1:36am.

I hope everyone in Canada enjoys their freedom to look at children pretending to do the reverse cowgirl with other children. OBscenity is based on community standards and I don't want to live in any community where this perversion takes place.

Submitted by Fang-Face on December 1, 2006 - 1:58am.

That's okay; I don't want to live in a community where power-tripping, ultra-self-righteous control freaks go around screaming, "Burn the Withch! We must think of the children!"

Hey, wait a second . . . doesn't thinking about the children make them the same kind of pervert? After all, nobody knows just what kinds of thoughts those perverts are thinking in those disgusting and squirming little minds of theirs.

Personally, I'd rather live in a community where people are sane and where, if someone has to be tried, they are tried for actual crimes and their due process rights are respected no matter what kind of a despicable piece of shit I think they are.

Don't know where I'm going to find a place like that, though.

Submitted by mdoneil on December 1, 2006 - 3:30am.

Well she did weigh the same as a duck.

Submitted by Turner on December 1, 2006 - 4:01am.

It is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

So is the lascivious pose in the model or the mind of the beholder?

I'll go with beholder...

If you want to prosecute a thought crime here...who is thinking the thought crimes?

Obviously it wasn't the model or the producer...

it's a case of shooting the messenger....blame them for your lascivious thoughts....

Oh brother...gag me with a smurf...