GirlChat #593189

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

Re: Introducing myself to the forum

Posted by Dante on Monday, April 21 2014 at 10:31:35AM
In reply to Introducing myself to the forum posted by girllovepride on Monday, April 21 2014 at 09:02:16AM

"Most of these photos are taken by professional photographers. The girls are posing. They are always dressed, never naked and never involving any kind of sexual activity, although many of them show poses that could be considered sexy, exposing their panties, for instance. Is there anything illegal in having or distributing this kind of content?"

That depends on your jurisdiction; but generally yes it is illegal CP.

From the Wikipedia Page on Child Erotica;

Depictions of even a clothed child violate U.S. federal law 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4), and 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(E) if they constitute "lascivious" exhibitions of the genitalia or pubic area. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has defined "lascivious" as "tending to excite lust; lewd; indecent; obscene; sexual impurity; tending to deprave the morals in respect to sexual relations."

Some professional agencies such as A Little Agency were shut down in the US for creating CP despite none of the images being anything other than clothed ones.

From the same Wikipedia page;

"In early 2006 the operators of the child modeling agencies "A Little Agency" and "The VMS," (Matthew Duhamel) were arrested on charges of child pornography. Neither A Little Agency nor the VMS distributed nude photographs but federal prosecutors argued that they still contained "lascivious exhibitions" of the genitalia based on the six part Dost test. Federal prosecutors claimed the Web sites dealt in images of girls as young as 9 wearing scant clothing in suggestive poses. One photo reportedly shows a 9-year-old girl in "black stiletto pumps, a black lace thong, black bra, and a black jacket" sitting on a dining room table, according to court records. The operators were indicted on transportation of child pornography, possession of child pornography and receipt of child pornography. Attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the charges against them arguing that the pictures of young girls in suggestive poses on the websites they operated did not rise to the level of pornography. However, the judge assigned to the case, Chief Judge Campbell, denied the motion to dismiss, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has determined fully clothed pictures can be considered pornographic."

Its true that Prosecutors always describe CP as "child sexual abuse imagery;" and therefore imply that it might contain sexual acts, nude imagery, or even real children. None of these are required. The only way to know what CP actually consists of is to follow the statutes and the case-law as they evolve.

Chances are that any professional photographer snapping panty-revealing shots is creating CP by US jurisdictional definitions. You may want to check your local laws.

And please, No Rule 6 violations on this topic.

Dissident is right. GC is not a picture-trading site.

Dante

Dante





• ( http link ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_erotica
[Anonymouse]  

Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)
Subject







Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?