Certain child port is. Boasting about it is a bad idea.
What is child port?
Posted 22 February 2012 - 05:16 AM
Typo. I thought I fixed it.What is child port?
Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:46 PM
The post he was replying to was obviously about "porn," not "child porn." Heaven help us if the RCMP and FBI have to deal with every ridiculous report such as yours. Seriously. Think of the wasted money and man power - and how it takes away from actual cases that actually need attention.Whatever. The authorities can determine whether he was talking about legal porn or child porn, as is the topic here.
Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:58 PM
.... Seriously. Think of the wasted money and man power - and how it takes away from actual cases that actually need attention.
Posted 23 February 2012 - 08:24 AM
Feel free to contact me outside the forums. Add "TheNewTeddy" to Twitter, Facebook, or Hotmail to reach me!
Posted 23 February 2012 - 09:58 AM
.... Just because I once saw a 17 year old (supposedly) girl on a nudist website does not make me a pedo, nor, does it make me want to be a pedo.
Posted 23 February 2012 - 12:21 PM
Yup....'cept she was 15.Definitely not....but that won't deter the self appointed pedo police here!
Back in the mid 1980's, a 16 year old girl fooled Penthouse and the Hollywood porn industry by being cast in a "feature" film that spoofed the popular mermaid movie Splash. When it was proven that the girl, stage named Traci Lords, was in fact underage, there was a mad scramble to find all the VHS copies of her films and destroy them. This led directly to an age certification and records process for all actors in the US porn industry.
Posted 23 February 2012 - 01:10 PM
Yup....'cept she was 15.
And if anyone owns that VHS tape or another one with her in it, has 'hooker' in the title , you can be charged with possession of child porn.
Aint no grandfathering clause in this case.
Stick to Ivory.
Posted 23 February 2012 - 01:25 PM
The funny part is that Traci Lords would go on to be a successful 'B' movie actor, unlike most of her cohorts who were forever blacklisted from "mainstream" films (at the time).
Edited by guyser, 23 February 2012 - 01:28 PM.
Posted 23 February 2012 - 01:53 PM
....ETA- I was watching The DOg Whisperer alongside my gf and the woman he was helping looked familiar....once I recalled who she was I blurted out "hey shes an old porn star".....and turned my head whe I heard "oh and how do you know that?"
Posted 23 February 2012 - 05:11 PM
Yup....'cept she was 15.
And if anyone owns that VHS tape or another one with her in it, has 'hooker' in the title , you can be charged with possession of child porn.
Aint no grandfathering clause in this case.
Stick to Ivory.
Posted 23 February 2012 - 05:49 PM
Should have found some guy to pay much dinero for it.....of course you meet him w a fake nose and moustacheI was cleaning out a closet some years ago, when guess what I found? Some old mens magazines, one of which was the Penthouse with George Burns on the cover. I flipped through it, being a fan of Burns, and remember seeing the Tracy Lords centerfold. The first thing I recall thinking was, she sure as hell doesn't look like any fifteen year old I remember seeing in high school. My second thought was - holy crap, I better get rid of this freaking thing fast. Was living in an apartment building then, so down the chute it went.
I don't like laws which are as drastic as the child porn law is (probably worse than anything short of murder), yet can catch people completely inadvertently and destroy them.
Posted 09 May 2012 - 03:56 PM
"The purposeful viewing of child pornography on the internet is now legal in New York," Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote in a majority decision for the court.
The decision came after Marist College professor James D. Kent was sentenced to prison in August 2009 after more than 100 images of child pornography were found on his computer's cache.
Whenever someone views an image online, a copy of the image's data is saved in the computer's memory cache.
The ruling attempts to distinguish between individuals who see an image of child pornography online versus those who actively download and store such images, MSNBC reports. And in this case, it was ruled that a computer's image cache is not the same as actively choosing to download and save an image. link