Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pussyluver
In the United sates we're suppose to have something called due process! To say just throw someone in jail without a trial is not what our constitution is about.
|
I WAS joking. Despite that, it gets boring listening to lame defenses and claims of free speech where "art" is claimed and this involves images of children related to porn sites - they just don't mix.
It's not just a legal issue, but a moral one.
I'd be first in line if there was a genuine defense, but this, along with other alleged "artistic adult sites" with images of children is simply pandering to pedos and under the guise of "education" (remember sexeducation?) or "art".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pussyluver
Mixing porn and art of nude children seems very unwise.
|
Totally agree!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pussyluver
My parents took pictures of both my sister and me in the bathtub. Gee. we were nude. Was that porn? No, just embarrassing.
|
It IS a bit embarassing eh? We all got that baggage parents inflict on us
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pussyluver
Met-art is known for erotic art. The key word here is erotic. IF you make that underage person seem erotic, is there a problem. Guess so in the US.
|
Agree and not just in the US - there are many places where this could be illegal. It's too dubious an area to mix with "adult" even after a load of opinions from lawyers. I'll stick to plain vanilla porn and argue the morality of that instead.