correct on 2 on 1 uhhh not entirely correct in terms of say a kid being nude or almost because they got hid with white phosphorus and had to shed clothes medical treatment etc but still sick fucks would jack to it. Salacious posing nudist stuff is child porn considering the tone context and use/intent of the marketing, a video showing birth and a naked baby isn't inherently wrong but these sick fucks market that shit to "to condition" people for it
I'm 100% correct on #1. In ALL states in the US, you can have pictures of naked kids on your computer provided they aren't in a seductive or sexual pose AND you don't take sexual pleasure in looking at them. In almost all of the states, the second part of that isn't in the law and doesn't matter. A couple states like Pennsylvania could arrest one person and not another for the exact same photo on their computer. The difference is which one takes sexual pleasure in it and who doesn't. But like I said, non-sexual nudes is legal (thus why websites of nudist camps are totally legal).
So, you didn't read my description above. I do this for a living. I know exactly what the fuck I'm talking about here. I literally JUST got done with a case specifically to this.
well you need to brush up on the law...its always been this way, hording pics of naked kids has been prosecuted with intent proven...its a disgusting habit. I provided the link if you happen to be a state that tries some weird "liberal case law" than congrats.
Read again what I wrote. What I said was, "Child nudity is not necessarily child pornography." You said I was wrong then repeated what I said. So let me write it again in a different way.
Sometimes pics of nude kids IS pr0n. Sometimes pics of nude kids is NOT pr0n.
Does that make it easier for you? I don't need to brush up on anything. I have done enough prosecution and defense on that specific point alone in multiple states I know exactly what I'm talking about. I even explained that point with examples. So either your not understanding what I wrote or... No, you're clearly not understanding what I wrote.
come on man you know what I said as well, its considered that depending on context intent. It varies state to state, not to busrt your bubble but generalizations are fine even though its a complex argument due to a myriad of state and federal definitons.
Which is exactly what I stated WAY before you commented that I was wrong. Seriously, look at my comments where I actually explain that state to state varies.
"Child nudity is not necessarily child pornography." I stated I was not in full agreements with the statement as is, with caveats and a more narrow description.
view the rest of the comments →
HarveyKlinger ago
A couple quick corrections:
urbanmoving ago
correct on 2 on 1 uhhh not entirely correct in terms of say a kid being nude or almost because they got hid with white phosphorus and had to shed clothes medical treatment etc but still sick fucks would jack to it. Salacious posing nudist stuff is child porn considering the tone context and use/intent of the marketing, a video showing birth and a naked baby isn't inherently wrong but these sick fucks market that shit to "to condition" people for it
HarveyKlinger ago
I'm 100% correct on #1. In ALL states in the US, you can have pictures of naked kids on your computer provided they aren't in a seductive or sexual pose AND you don't take sexual pleasure in looking at them. In almost all of the states, the second part of that isn't in the law and doesn't matter. A couple states like Pennsylvania could arrest one person and not another for the exact same photo on their computer. The difference is which one takes sexual pleasure in it and who doesn't. But like I said, non-sexual nudes is legal (thus why websites of nudist camps are totally legal).
urbanmoving ago
"with lascivious intent"-many states have this btw not jsut Mass
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/child-pornography-and-selfies--what-you-need-to-know.html
urbanmoving ago
Thats false, nudist pics have been prosecuted as child pornography....you need to brush up on this.
HarveyKlinger ago
So, you didn't read my description above. I do this for a living. I know exactly what the fuck I'm talking about here. I literally JUST got done with a case specifically to this.
urbanmoving ago
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/child-pornography-and-selfies--what-you-need-to-know.html
"lascivious intent" in Mass many states have that
urbanmoving ago
well you need to brush up on the law...its always been this way, hording pics of naked kids has been prosecuted with intent proven...its a disgusting habit. I provided the link if you happen to be a state that tries some weird "liberal case law" than congrats.
HarveyKlinger ago
Read again what I wrote. What I said was, "Child nudity is not necessarily child pornography." You said I was wrong then repeated what I said. So let me write it again in a different way.
Sometimes pics of nude kids IS pr0n. Sometimes pics of nude kids is NOT pr0n.
Does that make it easier for you? I don't need to brush up on anything. I have done enough prosecution and defense on that specific point alone in multiple states I know exactly what I'm talking about. I even explained that point with examples. So either your not understanding what I wrote or... No, you're clearly not understanding what I wrote.
urbanmoving ago
come on man you know what I said as well, its considered that depending on context intent. It varies state to state, not to busrt your bubble but generalizations are fine even though its a complex argument due to a myriad of state and federal definitons.
HarveyKlinger ago
Which is exactly what I stated WAY before you commented that I was wrong. Seriously, look at my comments where I actually explain that state to state varies.
urbanmoving ago
"Child nudity is not necessarily child pornography." I stated I was not in full agreements with the statement as is, with caveats and a more narrow description.