GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

UnseenWorld · 02-04-2002, 10:44 AM

While it's distressing to think someone is appealing to the prurient interest of pedos, it's legally not child "porn" unless there is something inherently sexual about the image: lascivious (not casual) genital display or sexual activity. The guy is still a schmuck, but what he's doing isn't necessarily illegal. The mere nudity of children isn't pornographic, or half the cathedrals in the world (with naked cherubs painted here and there) would have to be spray painted.

02-04-2002, 10:44 AM
UnseenWorld Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: Portland, OR, USA Posts: 5,279	While it's distressing to think someone is appealing to the prurient interest of pedos, it's legally not child "porn" unless there is something inherently sexual about the image: lascivious (not casual) genital display or sexual activity. The guy is still a schmuck, but what he's doing isn't necessarily illegal. The mere nudity of children isn't pornographic, or half the cathedrals in the world (with naked cherubs painted here and there) would have to be spray painted. __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.