MarvinisaLunatic 0 Report post Posted April 2, 2005 Ok, seriously..There was this show on HD Net about an hour ago dealing with people who are Nudists, err..Naturalists. Anyway, I was shocked first when I saw that it wasnt edited..they showed men and women completely naked..which I didnt have a problem with, although most of them should refind their clothes... Then all of a sudden, they cut to a mother (naked) and her two sons (also naked) and she starts wiping their ...uh...private parts.. and you could actually see them...in High Definition none the less. I...I'm speechless..I thought there were laws against that sort of thing. "The Supreme Court has recognized that obscenity and child pornography laws are still in effect, both for physical transfers and electronic transfers, noting in Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S.Ct. 2329, at 2347, n. 44 (1997), that: "Transmitting obscenity and child pornography, whether via the Internet or other means, is already illegal under federal law for both adults and juveniles." I think someone needs to make a phone call to Mr. Cuban and ask him if he knows whats airing on his network.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richard 0 Report post Posted April 2, 2005 could you describe the boys? were they cute? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted April 2, 2005 Maybe it was art, you prude... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slayer 0 Report post Posted April 2, 2005 Just plain child nudity ain't child porn Now if the kids were diddling each other and/or mom, then it would be Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Agent of Oblivion Report post Posted April 2, 2005 Yeah, there's a caveat of sexually explicit situations.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
razazteca 0 Report post Posted April 2, 2005 Hippies don't wear clothes while on vacation? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nl5xsk1 0 Report post Posted April 2, 2005 Just because you choked your chicken while you watched doesn't mean it was porn. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dubq 0 Report post Posted April 2, 2005 Holy shit, is this guy really that stupid? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted April 3, 2005 If you're talking about Marvin, I dunno. I was just goofing around... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spman 0 Report post Posted April 3, 2005 It's somewhat of a gray area. There are quite a few sites which feature pictures of people quite clearly under the age of 18 engaged in a variety of different kinds of activities which fall under the broad category of "Nudism" or "Naturalism", these sites are able to tip toe around the law by being classified as "art" even though they are clearly aiming for the pedophile market. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vitamin X Report post Posted April 3, 2005 Yes, National Geographic is CLEARLY pornography. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted April 3, 2005 Yes, National Geographic is CLEARLY pornography. I just buy it for the articles. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarvinisaLunatic 0 Report post Posted April 3, 2005 Ok..well..I should note that it was like 4 am when I posted this. The kids were shown naked more than just that particular scene, but it was the only one that showed off what I thought was too much. I still think theres something wrong with them being able to show this and then getting all mad at child pedophiles who have stashes of pictures of naked kids all over thier place. I dont see anything different between that and what I saw, even though the context is probably way different. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slayer 0 Report post Posted April 3, 2005 It's all about context If they're just naked running around (like nudist camps) then it's not child porn If it's, say, two kids diddling each other, then it is On the other hand, if it's a kid imitating goatse... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slayer 0 Report post Posted April 3, 2005 ...then it would be pretty damn funny Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boon 0 Report post Posted April 3, 2005 Yes, National Geographic is CLEARLY pornography. I just buy it for the articles. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nl5xsk1 0 Report post Posted April 3, 2005 On the other hand, if it's a kid imitating goatse... Or Tubgirl. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dubq 0 Report post Posted April 5, 2005 If you're talking about Marvin, I dunno. I was just goofing around... Marvin. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iggymcfly 0 Report post Posted April 6, 2005 I still think theres something wrong with them being able to show this and then getting all mad at child pedophiles who have stashes of pictures of naked kids all over thier place. I dont see anything different between that and what I saw, even though the context is probably way different. I'm pretty sure that the point is that the pedophiles don't just have pictures of naked kids. They've probably got stashes of kids giving blowjobs, pleasuring each other, etc., etc. If there's something that's got real value as art or a documentary piece, I really don't think we need the government going all Gestapo, and trying to destroy the people who film it. Of course, looking for outrage over naked kids on a board with this many borderline pedophiles was probably a bad idea anyway. Here's a picture to try to help you get in touch with your inner pervert. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
