Would you report this as CP?
 

Okay, my friend was really upset about this site and confused because she doesn't know if it is illegal or not. She wanted to report it, but then again she dosnt want to put a bad name on someones legitmate business. So she asked me for a second opinion. Problem is Im not sure myself. From the entrypage it looks like a cp site cause she has a pic of a little cartoon girl in pigtails sitting on a fence swinging her legs. Not to mention the name of the site, littlegirlnextdoor. Plus on her main page she intices the surfer by describing when she was young and doing things like jumping rope. But then again it looks legit since she is definetly over 18 and she's just doing fantasy, right? Maybe she just has a good idea, since she's not under 18 or exploiting kids.

What do you think?

Here is the site:

littlegirlnextdoor.com

no

spam..

If that offends you, you're in the wrong business. A cartoon girl sitting on a swing, not even remotely sexual, and you're asking if it constitutes kiddie porn?

kewl.

i thought any porn site with a child or simulated child on it was CP. Good its not. Kewl.

She looks 25... Nothing wrong with a little story telling, its all in past tense -

You know who I am, I'm the fresh faced, sweet little girl who lived next door to you. I used to jump rope and ride my bike out in front of your house.

this was the worst attempt of spam I have ever seeeen

simulated child porn = illegal
clip art with a girl sitting on a fence = okay

haha why would i spam my own site by calling it CP? If anything that might run my own customers away.

Spam, lol.

No I couldnt build a site if my life depended on it.

Your friend must be a jealous girl.

I wouldn't even call that girl a teen. And if you are talking about the animation, I wouldn't report it.

or a fucking retard

yes, yall, she must be jealous, lol

Report it if you have nothing else to do !

Ahh! Kiddie porn! You sick bastard I'm gonna report you!! :boid

spam. lame spam.

chromelover: NEVER post a link to anything which might be CP and ask "Is this CP?" If you think it's CP, report it to ASACP. Talk about it all you want, but don't put up a link.

u stupid fuck, the bitch is about 30 years old!

you in the wrong business.

LOL so true

milfnextdoor

why are you on a webmaster board then.. looking for a fluffer position?

You're wrong. The simulated stuff is legal. At least according to courts here in the US.

another newbie without a clue

u sure bout that?

You bet I am. I try not to post here if I'm unsure of what I'm talking about.

http://www.freedomforum.org/template...cumentID=16075

Here's the story for those to lazy to click:

WASHINGTON ? The Supreme Court struck down a congressional ban on virtual child pornography today, ruling that the First Amendment protects pornography or other sexual images that only appear to dhahahahat real children engaged in sex.

The 6-3 ruling in Ashhahahahaha v. Free Speech Coalition is a victory for both pornographers and legitimate artists such as moviemakers, who argued that a broad ban on simulated child sex could make it a crime to dhahahahat a sex scene like those in the recent movies "Traffic" or "Lolita."

The court said language in a 1996 child pornography law was unconstitutionally vague and far-reaching.

The court majority, led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, found two provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act overly broad and unconstitutional.

"The First Amendment requires a more precise restriction," Kennedy wrote for himself and Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately to agree with the outcome.

The law was challenged by a trade association for pornographers.

The law barred sexually explicit material that "appear(s) to be a minor" or that is advertised in a way that "conveys the impression" that a minor was involved in its creation.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor partially agreed with the majority and partially disagreed. She was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia. Rehnquist and Scalia also filed their own separate dissenting opinion that went further.

"The aim of ensuring the enforceability of our nation's child pornography laws is a compelling one," Rehnquist wrote for the pair. "The (law) is targeted to this aim by extending the definition of child pornography to reach computer-generated images that are virtually indistinguishable from real children engaged in sexually explicit conduct."

The law was Congress' answer to then-emerging computer technology that allowed the computer alteration of innocent images of real children, or the creation from scratch of simulated children posed in sexual acts.

The law was an expansion of existing bans on the usual sort of child pornography. Congress justified the wider ban on grounds that while no real children were harmed in creating the material, real children could be harmed by feeding the prurient appetites of pedophiles or child molesters.

The Free Speech Coalition, the pornographers' trade group, said it opposes child pornography but that the law could snare legitimate, if unsavory, films and photos produced by its members.

The group did not challenge a section of the law that banned the use of identifiable children in computer-altered sexual images.

A federal judge upheld the law, but the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided in December 1999 that the challenged provisions violated the Constitution's free-speech guarantee.

The appeals court said the government did not show a connection between computer-generated child pornography and the exploitation of actual children.

The Supreme Court upheld the appeals court, finding that the law would ban images that are not obscene as the court has previously defined that term. Neither obscenity nor child pornography involving real children is protected by the Constitution's free-speech guarantee.

The Clinton and Bush administrations defended the law in court, claiming it "helps to stamp out the market for child pornography involving real children."

This case is one of two dealing with children and pornography that the court considered this term. The other, which the court has not yet decided, tests the constitutionality of a separate law governing children's access to sexually explicit material on the Internet.

never mind

And this is how it goes

Some guy wanting to report a site where he THINKS its CP. Where he thinks the girls is under 18 (she looks 30).

And he is on a webmaster board

Now imagine the real surfer,,

And we wonder why Visa pulls out??
they get 1 million emails per day on sites like that eh?
From Webmasters?