17 yr old girl posting erotic pictures

[Restecpa]

Erm.. I'd just like to say for the record that these latest comments have nothing to do with me or my views regarding this. I'm strongly against paedo* anything. All I wanted to know was how law interprets 17 yr olds somewhat erotic pictures and your opinion regarding this matter. Thanks

PS: I think DaddyHalbucks was just being sarcastic as to how stupid this whole law is. It's permitting the actual act but not pictures that might be suggesting it. It's almost like as if they would allow you to kill people, as long as you don't talk about it.. It's stupid, think about it.

 

[mike031]

......if only posting "erotic pictures" on the net was the biggest problem with teenagers this days!!! this is both funny and sad at the same time.. but anyway....if you want to keep a clean forum then you simply get rid of anything that might be classified "erotic" or inappropriate especially from kids.... if you could care less about what is posted or choose to ignore this issues then you risk the... consequences'

 

[hotirish]

Well I'll stick up for DaddyHalbucks, if we spent a bit a more time looking at pics of 17yo's butts/ and having sex we might have a little less time to spend killing each other and fu*king up the world.

Just goes to show my 'perverted' morals I guess.

 

[Restecpa]

One more thing, I've noticed an increase in registrations at "enter fitness .com" in the last 3 days. About 6 people from here joined I take it you expected to see these pictures? Perverts They're not there

So while I'm glad to see new members join, I don't want you to be "tricked" into believeing that that's the forum in question and wasting your time registering, if these pictures are the only reason for it. Feel free to stay active though, new members are always welcome.

 

[mike031]

haha :cheeky:

damn politics!

 

[tnt]

I agree with all the opinions above.

The official monthly publication of one of the recognized legitimate nudist organizations in the US publishes pictures of nude minors. In that context, it seems to be okay.

Those same pictures published in a rag called "Young Sweethearts" might not be okay.

With thongs becoming popular, butts seemed to have gained at least some acceptence. Topfreedom activists have won the right for women to go topless anyplace men can in many jurisdictions. I don't know what that's worth in the way of advice -- just thought I'd mention it.

Me, I wouldn't get involved with any nudity on the part of minors. There's the compelling moral issues, the heavy legal penalties, and the horrible feeling one must get when his or her name appears in the paper as a potential child pornographer.

I just can't see it being worth the trouble.

 

[namestrands]

Legal Issues aside, I think there is a bigger moral issue that should be addressed, do you want your website to be a playground for PedoPhiles, there in lies your problem.

Regardless of the innocent intentions of the Site, with that sort of content you could potentially open yourself up to not only civil and legal issues, but more likely personal security issues.

Ask yourself, how would you feel about it if it was your teenage daughter?

 

[Restecpa]

Well, my teenage daughter wouldn't do that. I would teach her to respect herself on time, so we would not have such problems once her hormones go crazy.

And lets say she would do it anyway, just to make another point. I definatelly wouldn't blame a webmaster of a forum with over 110000 posts. If anyone, I'd blame myself for not doing my "job" as a parent. It's parents responsibility to look over childs shoulder, teach him/her basic things about life and self respect and make sure he/she is safe. I wouldn't expect webmasters and other people to overlook, educate and upbring my children..

 

[jberryhill]

Well, my teenage daughter wouldn't do that. I would [...]

I gather you don't have a teenage daughter.

 

[namestrands]

Well, my teenage daughter wouldn't do that. I would teach her to respect herself on time..

Well I am happy for you that you are so sure that nothing outside of your parenting skills could influence your daughter.

I gave my opinion on the basis of how I would feel about the question and the legality of the subject of this thread, this was based on the how I would feel if I knew that dirty perverts were leaching over pictures of this nature, and no doubt spreading them all over the world.

I would also be frightened of the fact that some people might construe these pictures as an indirect invitiation to come see my daughter to the point of even perhaps stalking, its not hard to find peoples home address, a forum owner has to take some responsibilty for its content, if not morally, but legally.

We live in a sick world, and as the saying goes.. if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

The mere fact that a forum owner is allowing this type of content, raises many questions and I am sure many people are going to be paying attention to this website in the future.

 

[Restecpa]

I wonder where are the rest of those people who are telling me (in the other thread) that freedom of speech comes at a price now?

You said "We can't discriminate against people that we dont agree with" yet you are telling me that such pictures should not be allowed because of the moral issues. Moral issues? Interesting how I find nazism of a bigger moral issue than this, yet you don't seem to agree. Double standards?

PS: This girl posted them on at least one more forum that I know of and said she is aware of all the negative aspects of doing this, yet in her own words - she's doesn't mind..

 

[Jonathan]

You said "We can't discriminate against people that we dont agree with" yet you are telling me that such pictures should not be allowed because of the moral issues. Moral issues? Interesting how I find nazism of a bigger moral issue than this, yet you don't seem to agree. Double standards?

There is a huge difference between supporting Nazism, and supporting freedom of speech. But you obviously can't distinguish between the two.

 

[namestrands]

I wonder where are the rest of those people who are telling me (in the other thread) that freedom of speech comes at a price now?

Who are you trying to convince here? you seem to be trying so hard to get approval for this matter. I think you yourself are battling with your own concience, here you are making an attempt to seek approval for this from your peers. Something in which I myself will not give. I think it is wrong, that is my opinion. Making a collateral attack against me and freedom of speech further demonstrates that you are looking to justify something that you truly know yourself is not right.

If you are seeking approval talk to your God. Or visit your local police department or social services and ask there opinion on child protection.

 

[Restecpa]

Who are you trying to convince here? you seem to be trying so hard to get approval for this matter. I think you yourself are battling with your own concience, here you are making an attempt to seek approval for this from your peers. Something in which I myself will not give. I think it is wrong, that is my opinion. Making a collateral attack against me and freedom of speech further demonstrates that you are looking to justify something that you truly know yourself is not right.

If you are seeking approval talk to your God. Or visit your local police department or social services and ask there opinion on child protection.

Making a collateral attack against you?

It's obvious that you havent even read the whole thread or else you wouldn't be making wild accusations towards the webmaster, questioning his motvies etc. Had you read it you would realize that pics were removed from the public eye, after the thread was locked. Furthermore, already the first post by me makes it obvious that I want to discuss this "issue" as far as LAW goes and not morality.

Now who's attacking who? :-/

 

[jberryhill]

Double standards?

No. In the other thread we are talking about words promoting racist violence. You can TALK about it all you want. What you can't do is to ACT on it. Now, again, not having seen the pictures in question, there is a clear difference between TALKING about child sexual exploitation, which anyone is free to do - for example, you can have a website promoting pedophilia or arguing that it should be legal - and ENGAGING in it, which the posting of exploitive pictures would necessarily entail.

It's not a double standard.

 

[Restecpa]

I understand that but thank you for clarifying it some more. I guess the whole freedom of speech thing can be a delicate matter.

Whoever wonders, I will say again: pics were nothing more than bikini shots to say at most. They were taken by this girl for the sole purpose of posting them on the net - she said so. They were not showing her face at the same time either. Had they been more revealing, there is no doubt they would be removed at once.

Either way, they were removed so they wouldn't endorse others to do the same or possibly post even more revealing ones. That however won't stop this girl from posting them on other forums.. I guess it's up to her parents now.

 

[jberryhill]

pics were nothing more than bikini shots to say at most.

The real problem with US laws on this sort of thing is that they are mainly state laws, and subject to "community standards" of decency. So a rear shot of thong bikini would not be offensive in, say, Miami, Florida, it would strike people very differently in, say, Wichita, Kansas.

And, to some extent, I will agree there is a mild "double standard" at work in the US concerning our general attitudes toward sexuality compared with general attitudes in Europe.

 

[namestrands]

Is is true that there is a STATE in america that a woman can be charged if here thong is showing

 

[Restecpa]

Wouldn't be surprised, considering that in Virginia guys aren't allowed to show their underwear either (which is a trend with skaters and rappers - to have their boxer shorts sticking out above the belt) so called "Low-riding Pants".

Haha.. that's stupid. What happened to freedom to express yourself? It's merely a fashion statement. Oh well.. Go Europe!

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/Wire/050209f.asp?option=print

 

[Jonathan]

Wouldn't be surprised, considering that in Virginia guys aren't allowed to show their underwear either (which is a trend with skaters and rappers - to have their boxer shorts sticking out above the belt) so called "Low-riding Pants".

Haha.. that's stupid. What happened to freedom to express yourself? It's merely a fashion statement. Oh well.. Go Europe!

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/Wire/050209f.asp?option=print

Thank you for posting. It helps me and others better understand the skewered views that many Europeans share.

You were unable to distinguish between supporting Nazism, and supporting freedom of speech, so I guess it shouldn't be any surprise that you don't understand this.