Child porn?

O

Orleander

OH JOY!!!!
Valued Senior Member
Why has National Geographic never been investigated for child porn?

Federal authorities are on the hunt for a pornographer peddling risqué pics of under-age baby mama Jamie Lynn Spears!

Jamie Lynn is seen hard at work breast feeding Maddie and her breast is visibly exposed.

Because Jamie Lynn is under age selling or buying pics may constitute a violation of federal pornography laws. Peddling pix of a minor's breast even if not taken for sexual purposes could land offenders in federal prison. In addition, anyone buying the pics may be prosecuted for purchasing stolen goods.

The pictures are from Casey Aldridge's digital camera.

Sources say he took the camera to a local Wal-Mart in Louisiana where feds believe an employee may have downloaded extra copies, attempting to sell them. (National Enquirer)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's been plenty of films with underage nudity in them too.
 
Orleander said:
Why has National Geographic never been investigated for child porn?
Click to expand...

Maybe because if the picture is taken in another country where there are no child pornography laws, say, anywhere in Africa, then its perfectly legit, maybe?:shrug:

Because Jamie Lynn is under age selling or buying pics may constitute a violation of federal pornography laws. Peddling pix of a minor's breast even if not taken for sexual purposes could land offenders in federal prison.
Click to expand...

So are all of those sex-ed videos I watched child pornography?

In addition, anyone buying the pics may be prosecuted for purchasing stolen goods.
Click to expand...

STOLEN GOODS??? What did they steal, BREASTS? THE MILK? THE MENTAL IMAGE?
Also, does that mean that my school/school district is a bunch of thieves??
 
I also have a question: Is it illegal for a minor to have (I know that's not the best word, but oh well) child pornography?
 
Jamie Lynn Spears!
Click to expand...
Ah the paparasie problem
Persenally I'm not really interested in her Jamie Lynn Spears tit And I wonder who would even find that erotic.
I'm more disturbed with things like Princess Diana death by them.
Paparasie are a problem and it should be legally dealth with, but child pornography? Honnestly these people didn't care
 
I am not sure she is underage. In certain states you can marry at 14, so 16 isn't exactly child porn...

By child porn they don't mean teenagerporn...
 
amark317 said:
I also have a question: Is it illegal for a minor to have (I know that's not the best word, but oh well) child pornography?
Click to expand...

depends where you live. in NZ and aus its legal to film consentual sex with a 16-17 year old, but illegal to distribute it. if they are under the age of consent however then what you have is hard evidence for the courts to arse-fuck you with if her parents decide to get the police involved
 
It's a fucking rediculous assertion. A picture of a 17 year old mother (who's probably been fucking since she was 13) breast feeding is "child porn"? Oh come on.
 
superluminal said:
It's a fucking rediculous assertion. A picture of a 17 year old mother (who's probably been fucking since she was 13) breast feeding is "child porn"? Oh come on.
Click to expand...

By looking older than she was, and having a fake ID, Tracy Lords began doing hardcore porn when she was fifteen or sixteen. Years later, the truth came out, and all distributors dumped her older films.

I read about a case in Playboy where some guy at a swap meet was selling her older films, advertising that they were "banned". He was busted for selling child porn. I have the issue of Penthouse that she was in from 1984 (she was sixteen). I should probably get rid of it. I'd be afraid to sell it on Ebay. This has become a modern day witch hunt.
 
I thought it wasn't porn if there was no sexual intent. They show naked images in museums all of the time and you don't have to be an adult to view them. Or the exhibit called Body worlds that uses actual human bodies hides nothing from its viewers and again it's not considered porn and children can view it. I heard of a case somewhere in Texas I believe where there was a picture of a mother breastfeeding her new baby and her 5 year old son was next to her and someone turned the picture into authorities and tried to have the child taken away from his parents, because of what he was exposed to. I don't get what exactly makes pictures like that sexual.
 
CutsieMarie89 said:
I thought it wasn't porn if there was no sexual intent. They show naked images in museums all of the time and you don't have to be an adult to view them. Or the exhibit called Body worlds that uses actual human bodies hides nothing from its viewers and again it's not considered porn and children can view it. I heard of a case somewhere in Texas I believe where there was a picture of a mother breastfeeding her new baby and her 5 year old son was next to her and someone turned the picture into authorities and tried to have the child taken away from his parents, because of what he was exposed to. I don't get what exactly makes pictures like that sexual.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I've seen TV commercials with toddlers running around naked. Usually for a diaper commercial or something. Is that child porn? The whole thing is rediculous. It's just a damn human body. If someone wants to sexualize a particular image of it, there's nothing anyone can do to stop them, nor should there be. Thought police anyone? So do we ban images of a normal beach with kids running around with their bottoms exposed because their suit rode up their crack?

It's nuts.
 
I've heard that they are abouth to sell a Sex tape of the lady spears.
Appearently it's two hours of brintey spears wearing only a pink wig...
 
Jamie Lynn Spears has had boyfriends for years. In fact, one of them even got her PREGNANT; she is no pure and innocent child.

Plus, am I right in thinking that she is 16*? How is that underage!?

*from the posts in this thread.
 
amark317 said:
I also have a question: Is it illegal for a minor to have (I know that's not the best word, but oh well) child pornography?
Click to expand...
In the U.S., yes. There was a case recently where a teenage girl emailed nude photos of herself to a her teenage boyfriend, and they were both busted for "child" pornography. What an insane country...
 
(Insert title here)

The classic definition of pornography is, "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it".

No, it's not a great definition. But come on, it's not exactly a subtle difference. What of Ms. Spears did the viewer see? And no, I don't think a picture of a teenage mother breast-feeding a child makes for pornography, but the comparison to National Geographic is ridiculous.

Reasons for nudity in National Geographic:

• Documenting how people live.​

Reasons for tabloid photos of Jamie Lynn Spears breast-feeding:

• Makes for good scandal-rag fodder.
• Feeds a perverse sexual obsession with teen motherhood.
• Educates teenagers on the challenges of being a teen mother.​

Somehow, I just don't think that last one is on any celeb-tabloid's list. To the other, that second isn't exactly an overt motive. Which, of course, leaves us with the most obvious option: it's all about feeding a scandal-hungry market. Child porn? Go after them with what you've got, if you're so inclined. After all, we got Capone for tax evasion.
 
We are getting out of control.

As an example.. it was very hot here this weekend. And at one point, we were washing our cars in the front yard and our kids had stripped off and were running around the front yard naked.. They're 3 and 18 months, and they were having a ball as we kept squirting them with the hose. We have a medium height fence in our front yard and it is gated and locked (so the little blighters can't get out), but people walking past can actually see into our front yard. We didn't think anything of it. Then a middle aged couple walked past our house and saw the kids dashing around the yard in their natural state. They then called out to us and advised us that we shouldn't let them (pointing to our kids) do that because you never know who could see them and get "turned on" and take them. Or "worse", take their photos and put it on the internet in child porn sites... Apparently taking their photo is worse than possible sexual assault or kidnapping. I felt a sense of rage that anyone could look at my kids and think that they were somehow or could be considered sexual beings at their age. I was more uncomfortable by their having noticed it and felt the need to point it out to us... apparently we are meant to teach our children that nakedness is wrong and dirty because some sick fuck might consider it a turn on. It seems kids can't be kids anymore without someone saying something like that.

So we have decided to rebuild our front fence. A tall one where anyone walking past can't see into our front yard. Not because some pervert might take photos of our kids if they are running around naked. But so that asshats like that couple don't take it upon themselves to not mind their own business and try to inject that kind of fear in my children... My three year old, very bright for his age, understood them when they started saying that it was wrong for letting children be naked in the public eye and that someone could "take them" as a result... Three year old then started to look worried and asked us straight away if we could help him put his clothes on in case "some man stole him from Mummy and Daddy".. He's 3 ffs. THREE! Now he's scared to be naked in case someone takes him..:bawl:

Our fear of child pornography is leading us down a path that has become, for lack of a better term, obsessive and ridiculous.

I don't consider a photo of the Spears girl to be pornographic. I consider it rude that the media think it acceptable to invade her privacy and take her photo while she is breastfeeding, without her permission. But pornography? Instead of putting laws in place that protect people's privacy so that they can feel free to breastfeed in public without harassment from the media or anyone else for that matter, they take the route of 'child porn'.
 
i agree with you 100%

nakedness is nothing to be ashamed of and its sad that only the very young can get away with it without being charged

as for breast feeding there are now laws in most (if not all) australian juristictions making it a criminal offence to penilise a women for breast feeding no matter where they are. I guess that law could be use to protect the photographer as well if they really pushed it:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top