ST Alpha - "Doesn't sound like the photo in question (it was just one being circulated) would meet the definition of porn." (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 161

In response to "Re:Parsons, there's still potential criminality for distributing child porn. -- nm" by Mop on Chrome on iPad

Doesn't sound like the photo in question (it was just one being circulated) would meet the definition of porn.

Posted by Name Withheld By Request (aka BlueKopo) Apr 26 '13, 09:56

Two faceless people in a doggie position with no naughty bits shown and somewhat clothed.

Responses:

I don't think being faceless makes it porn/notporn but it certainly does change whether they could do anything about it - zork Apr 26, 10:00
I'd have to see what the actual definition is, but it seems like it's a for a sexual purpose. -- nm - Reagen Apr 26, 09:57 7
- Maybe so, but again, I think that opens up a lot of kids nowadays to "distribution of child porn charges" if it's left too broad. - Name Withheld By Request Apr 26, 10:01 6
  - You'll note that a lot of kids are subject to exactly those charges these days. -- nm - Mop (190 lbs) Apr 26, 10:13 2
    - Maybe in the US, but not up here from what I understand. -- nm - Name Withheld By Request Apr 26, 10:16 1
      - don't we have some law about their needing to be more than a 2 year age difference of something - Andie Apr 26, 10:32
  - that IM would shut down a lot of websites -- nm - zork Apr 26, 10:03 2
    - Which probably should happen anyhow. -- nm - Name Withheld By Request Apr 26, 10:12 1
      - true -- nm - zork Apr 26, 10:16

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.