Safety another fat kid dancing vid...

do you honestly think he was expolited and forced to do that??

its a fat kid acting goofy.... jeeze... I guess you never acted like a tard until now...


btw.. 50! (always wanted to say that)

I dont think thats cp I think its just boys screwin around. my step sons wear 7 and 6 we bought them a digital camera the first time we transfreed the piccs to our computer they had taken pictures of eachothers asses ..it was so funny they didnt realize we were gonna see them ...THATS JUST WHAT SILLY BOYS DO.
now the part of the older one humping the younger one was kind of weird.

LOL

edited to add: you're still a pussy.

I think I'm in love.

-AC Tracey

he was just trying to get all up in his brother/cousin/dad's ass before his mom/sister came home to the trailer

word
and you're still a fucktard

This circuit has held that "lascivious" is a "commonsensical term", Wiegand at 1243, and that whether a given photo is lascivious is a question of fact. Id. at 1244. There is a consensus among the courts that whether the item to be judged is lewd, lascivious, or obscene is a determination that lay persons can and should make. See United States v. Thoma, 726 F.2d 1191, 1200 (7th Cir.) cert denied, 467 U.S. 1228 , 104 S.Ct. 2683, 81 L.Ed.2d 878 (1984); United States v. Thomas, 613 F.2d 787, 794 (10th Cir.) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 888 , 101 S.Ct. 245, 66 L.Ed.2d 114 (1980); United States v. Cutting, 538 F.2d 835, 840 (9th Cir. 1976) (en banc) ("female nudes so posed that a jury could quickly find that the sole purpose was to emphasize a lewd portrayal of the genitals."), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1052 , 97 S.Ct. 766, 50 L.Ed.2d 769 (1977); United States v. Nemuras, 567 F.Supp. 87, 90 (D.Md. 1983), aff'd, 740 F.2d 286 (4th Cir. 1984). Because the jury was fully capable of making its own determination on the issue of "lasciviousness," the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert testimony.

"lascivious" was like "lewd" and that it was more than distasteful and more than bad taste. Jury instruction, that was upheld in appeal.


I do not see how that video could be seen as lascivious, even if the boy grabbed his crotch, made jerk off motions with other hand, or grinded with another person. Taken as a whole it is nothing more than a fat boy dancing and goofing off. There also is no photographer ('s) intention in that video, which often is one of the guiding factors in "questionable" CP. The camera was pretty stationary, the boy danced without direction from another. At times the older guy nearly freaked when the boy started to remove some clothing.

The dance was all improv, not overtly sexual, or meant to arouse. The boy doing nothing different than what other teens and adults do everyday in the mainstream media, in movies, at dances, or in videos. Having less sexual overtones than your run of the mill underage MTV video, this would not fall under lewd, lascivious or obscene. It also would have a hard time passing all the prongs, since it can easily be argued that it is indeed art; since dance is an established art.

The only real scary thing about this is that of course it would be a jury that could possibly decide. This is scary only since many here scream that it is indeed CP.

eroswebmaster- told ya you were a stupid beotch!

You still cannot comprehend basic english huh?

freeadultcontent only backed up my argument.

As I stated before
So once againg for the special kid with the special helmet, who caught the short yellow bus to GFY...and for freeadultcontent...

it doesn't matter a fucking bit what you think about a damn thing when it all boils down to what a prosecutor decides to do.

And freeadultcontent, if a jury ever gets to decide such a thing it's because a prosecutor decided to procecute you for having such a thing.

And as far as the dance being "improv," or not "overtly sexual." Once again, you cannot answer the questions I posed above about the situation.

You weren't there, you do not know what occured before the filming, or after the filming.

We all know the fucking law and we still think you are being retarded on this one. No way in hell anyone would be convicted for having that file unless they were jerking off when the cops came in. Good Lord man, get over it. Want me to point out how damn near all porn could be found obscene by a jury?

As if it's your opinion that counts, is all I pointed out.

Well I see you edited your post...and thank you for proving my point for me.

This is exactly ALL I've been saying. It doesn't matter what we "deviant", "evil", "immoral," pornographers think.

What does matter is what a prosecutor, and a jury of your "peers" thinks. And guess what? The jury isn't going to be full of other pornographers, because didn't you know your peers are actually Bible Thumpers, little old white ladies who knit, married middle class white guys with kids who have hidden collections of tranny porn but are members of the Moral Majority.

So why take the chance?

I would rather have that on my HD then run a tgp that allows minors access to hardcore porn....

eroswebmaster, your points are valid when you cay "could be". Initially this was about people saying "it is".

When you did say "You weren't there, you do not know what occured before the filming, or after the filming." You are entirely correct, I was not there, none of us where there, nor was any potential prosecutor. In such a case they go by the video or the pictures and decide the intent of the photographer (see such case history) and also on how it was labled (again see such case histories).

The most valid point that has been made to it being CP has been pretty much overlooked though. This point being some of our peers (more liberal than nearly any jury we could wish for) say it is. That in itself is the fucked part of this situation.

eroswebmaster, I do not think you think this is CP, I do however think you are playing a little devils advocate here, which is cool.

Anyone (well those not in the top tax bracket) can be prosecuted for anything and loose. Maybe not in the court room every time but at least in the media. As the Feds like to say "you can beat the rap, but can not beat the ride".

I do not see this as CP nor anything remotely close to it. The chance of getting busted for having it would indeed be slim to none. Is there a chance, guess so by the responses of our peers.

Oh my someone with some common sense here at GFY...LOL

American PErv i am gonna kick yo ass when i see you fool

You guys are so off the deep end with that goofy video being CP.

Have you ever watched AFV? America's Funniest Videos. They show stuff like that on TV.

That's about as far from being CP as I can imagine.

Next you'll be saying KMart's a CP distributor because they show little girls modeling bathing suits in newspaper flyers.