kim wrote:

I think the kid is supposed to distract from that.

Or the rear flat (probably just a deep puddle). Some parents just don't know any better, I suppose. Cute kid, but give him a friggin' bathing suit, fercrissakes.

Last edited by pALEPHx (2007-11-10 16:58:16)

Plus, is it a good thing to give a kid a water hose while theres no top up on the car?

Yes, it is.  I'm a bit shocked as well, frankly.

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

The lady doth protest too much....

Gee, you sound almost like you want me to wax poetic about the twerp's disturbingly ambiguous genital area. Sorry, but that was my one and only reaction, motivated primarily by the memory of a nearly identical image of myself at the same age (minus the midget mangina). I'm just thinking how mortified he'll be in 10-15 years.

And no, you may not have pics.

Any shots of him bending over to polish the bumper grille?
Taint wants to know.

Last edited by WilberCuntLicker (2007-11-11 01:13:31)

I removed the picture because nekkid pictures of children are dangerous things and I could already picture choad sitting on a plain wooden chair under a bright, hot light being interrogated by gentlemen with shoulder holsters.  For the moment it's still on the ebay auction, but I'm sure that'll have a short lifespan as well.

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

I'm not condemning removal of the photo, because we don't want Choad going to jail. But we need to have an understanding of what's legally acceptable. Part of the reason I'm here is because we dare, as a community, to publish material that is considered "immoral." When we take down an innocent picture of a little boy grabbing his crotch, we're not doing the world a service. We're knuckling under to the Puritan dictates of our worst enemies.

If we want, a la Charles Dodgson, to look at or even take non-sexual photos that contain naked pre-pubescent children (the lady who took that shot, which I like, is reliving The Trial in Spain), we should not fear the Moral Gestapo. Jail is for criminals. Our eyes do harm to no one, and our cameras are only as evil or virtuous as our intentions.

I don't know the law in Canada, but in the United States it's againt the law to possess or distribute child porn.  What count as child porn is up for debate, and we don't want to be subject of that debate. 

Here's some food for thought:

innocent family photos or child porn

preteen fully clothed model site targeted as porn

family camping photos bring porn prosecution

the very issue of whether reporting child porn can in itself be considered promoting porn is up before the supreme court.  The opinion hasn't been published yet so I don't know what happened.

So, unless we amass a considerable legal defense fund, I suggest we avoid anythng the might vaguely be considered child porn and anything involving the publication of personal information.  That still leaves plenty of shit for us to stir.

And just to make it 100% clear, I didn't think there was anything immoral or sexutal about the picture itself, although I would love to see his parents doused with lemon and put through a meat grinder for posting it on the Internet because a) some creepy guy is probably fapping to it already, and b) a week before his Junior High Winter Dance someone is going to post it for all of his friends and would-be girlfriends to see and he's going to eat the business end of a hunting rifle.

Much better, thanks.  It kind of looks like he's being attacked by a Sanrio Snake.

fnord wrote:

Let eBay fight this one in court if it becomes an issue.

You must be joking - eBay is on the side of the fascists.  It's good for business.

Even going covert isn't likely to help much.

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

I'm not condemning removal of the photo, because we don't want Choad going to jail. But we need to have an understanding of what's legally acceptable. Part of the reason I'm here is because we dare, as a community, to publish material that is considered "immoral." When we take down an innocent picture of a little boy grabbing his crotch, we're not doing the world a service. We're knuckling under to the Puritan dictates of our worst enemies.

If we want, a la Charles Dodgson, to look at or even take non-sexual photos that contain naked pre-pubescent children (the lady who took that shot, which I like, is reliving The Trial in Spain), we should not fear the Moral Gestapo. Jail is for criminals. Our eyes do harm to no one, and our cameras are only as evil or virtuous as our intentions.

You're completely right, Wilber, but these are seriously weird times in the US d'A and with determinations of pornography and what is considered offensive settled by vague "community standards" we're better off not taking the chance.

I don't believe anyone within their right mind would consider that photo pornographic. But I also don't want High-Street caught up in a frenzy of lawsuits.

I gotta go with Headkick on this one.

Last edited by Taint (2007-11-12 01:41:37)

choad wrote:

What a world class shitty day.

Hear hear.