i sure as hell know, if they dont look 18+ i wouldnt list them.. just because they are, doesnt mean someone who is against that shit does and wont turn you into the authorities or something....

It's the 1st time i said this onb GFY. Calm Down!! It's just fucking joke!!!

In Canada it can be CP
 

In Canada, the federal Criminal Code creates specific offences against making, distributing, possessing or accessing child pornography.

"Child Pornography" is defined by the Criminal Code to include visual representations that show a person who is or is depicted as being under 18 years of age in what appears to be explicit sexual activity, visual representations whose dominant characteristic is the depiction of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of 18 and any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 [Emphasis added]

The definition of "visual representation" applies equally to electronic media, such as web sites.

The important thing to note here is that the person need only be depicted as being under the age of 18.

A web site that encourages access to these materials could be implicated in the distribution of these materials and could be charged with ?aiding and abetting? others in the commission of these offences.

Also, there is currently a Bill being considered by Parliament that proposes amendments to the Criminal Code. Amongst other things, Bill C-20 would make the following changes:

(a) amend the child pornography provisions to broaden their application and limit the available defences to such a charge;

(b) add a second category of written material to s. 163.1(1) ?the dominant characteristic of which is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act?. As a result, written material would not longer have to advocate or counsel illegal sexual activity with a person under 18 to fall under the definition of child pornography

Please note that this posting is intended for educational and discussion purposes only and not as legal advice.


You can icq me at 232035213

That is totally fucked. So if a site has models that are 25 and are waring 'schoolgirl' clothing and sucking lolly pop's: that CP.

Depends on the Circumstances
 

It depends on the specific facts in each case and whether or not the model is "depicted as being under 18 years of age in what appears to be explicit sexual activity" etc.

The case law in Canada has looked at various criteria to determine whether or not the material was infringing. However, all that might change if Bill C-20 is made into law. If that happens, prosecutors may have an easier time of making a case that the material is CP.




Disclaimer: This post is intended for educational and discussion purposes and not as legal advice.

Those chicks sure are ugly.

You all are a bunch of pedos

They aren't 18... which just goes to show you...

There is little difference between 17 years and 363 days and 18 years old.

You should be ashamed of your self lusting after those teenie tiny titties

Don't say 'teenie tiny titties' like that man. It's turning me on!!!!

Lux

Same opinion here !

thats what lionel hutz said when he was defending me in court anyway

nice girls!!!