Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
#58 - brettd
Reply 0
(01/24/2013) [-]
Can someone please explain to me as to what constitutes as child pornography? I've always been confused by how they determine what's allowed and what isn't.
#137 to #58 - rotinaj
Reply 0
(01/25/2013) [-]
"Nude or semi-nude minors". You will also become a registered sex offender if you're underage and get porn from another person who's underage as well. Not from experience, but it's still pretty damn silly. They should get in trouble, but they shouldn't be thrown in the same class as rapists for the rest of their lives for it.
#146 to #137 - curbed
Reply 0
(01/25/2013) [-]
My mom once took a picture of me in the bathtub when I was a baby. You're telling me that I can send her to jail?
#79 to #58 - Furubatsu
Reply 0
(01/24/2013) [-]
From what I understand, anyone underage in a sexual act/context and or a naked child in some cases (depending on something, i'm not entirely sure)
in England it is prety much illegal to bring a camera to any event with children, such as your childs school play or sports day just encase you find an 8-year old dressed as a sheep or throwing a bean-bag sexy. I think the only way around that bit if if you actually ask every parent present to said event if it is okay for you to actually film it.
#78 to #58 - anon
Reply 0
(01/24/2013) [-]
Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart : “I know it when I see it” (Jacobellis v. Ohio, 1964)
#60 to #58 - Keoul
Reply +2
(01/24/2013) [-]
Think it's suppose to be anyone underage doing anything sexual, though the laws regarding it are sketchy as hell.
#62 to #60 - brettd
Reply 0
(01/24/2013) [-]
Wait so as long as it's not sexual then it's not illegal?
#81 to #62 - coolcalx
Reply 0
(01/24/2013) [-]
well, you can take a photo of a nudist family, and post it online, and that's not illegal, so I guess?
#64 to #62 - Keoul
Reply 0
(01/24/2013) [-]
I suppose
You don't see parents getting locked up for taking nude pictures of their babies then showing it off to the world.
#65 to #64 - brettd
Reply 0
(01/24/2013) [-]
Yea but i'm sure there's still a line to be crossed
#68 to #65 - Keoul
Reply 0
(01/24/2013) [-]
I am by no means a lawyer and this is all conjecture.