depends how you are thinking about the child. if you are thinking about a kid baseball game you were at and watching you kids play and how fun that was, cool think away. if your thinking other shit, then there might be something wrong with you and you should get some help.
Child Porn
- Thread starter buttercup
- Start date
ya lost me with the blue font and being so fucking wordy. annoying to read and boring after the first line where it stops making sense. what i am getting from this thread is you think it is illegal to look at someone of legal age in a sexual manner, that just ain't what the law states, no matter how you want to twist it.Just so you know what "my own agenda" is, here's a repeat of post #42 from the Professor arrested for viewing child porn on his laptop during crowded airline flight thread, 30nov2011.
It wasn't written for people who get lost when faced with more than one sentence. And yes, the blue font can be a mind-bender. Sorry 'bout that.ya lost me with the blue font and being so fucking wordy. annoying to read and boring after the first line where it stops making sense. what i am getting from this thread is you think it is illegal to look at someone of legal age in a sexual manner, that just ain't what the law states, no matter how you want to twist it.
Simon, it is illegal, in Canada, to possess a picture that depicts a girl who appears to be under 18, displaying her genitals. If convicted, you face a minimum of 14 days in jail, and registration as a sex offender. Believe it -- or not -- as you wish.
Tough break with your balls, by the way. Hope it works out.
so i can fuck a girl who is 18, i just can't take a picture of it ? your really not making sense with this. the people that do google.ca should be in jail as should the porn makers and movie makers by your logic.It wasn't written for people who get lost when faced with more than one sentence. And yes, the blue font can be a mind-bender. Sorry 'bout that.
Simon, it is illegal, in Canada, to possess a picture that depicts a girl who appears to be under 18, displaying her genitals. If convicted, you face a minimum of 14 days in jail, and registration as a sex offender. Believe it -- or not -- as you wish.
Tough break with your balls, by the way. Hope it works out.
Don't look at child porn.
If you look at child porn, do society a favor and throw yourself off a building
If you are truly worried about getting busted for child porn, take a look in the mirror, and re-evaluate everything about your life. If you still are worried, then throw yourself off that building
The End.
If you look at child porn, do society a favor and throw yourself off a building
If you are truly worried about getting busted for child porn, take a look in the mirror, and re-evaluate everything about your life. If you still are worried, then throw yourself off that building
The End.
“child pornography” meansI imagine the part of the law that makes it illegal to look at pictures of people who 'appear to be under 18' is in place when the depicted persons age cannot be verified (but is unmistakably underage).
(a) a visual representation
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;
The TERB Lounge contains a number of threads that contain pictures that meet that definition. If the model is actually 21 but appears (to a judge) to be under 18, the picture is still classed as child porn. It is not a question of verifying the model's age.
There are those on here who like it that we have such laws in Canada. Others don't like it. But that's another story. Read the thread.
no it doesnt.“child pornography” means
(a) a visual representation
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;
The TERB Lounge contains a number of threads that contain pictures that meet that definition. If the model is actually 21 but appears (to a judge) to be under 18, the picture is still classed as child porn. It is not a question of verifying the model's age.
There are those on here who like it that we have such laws in Canada. Others don't like it. But that's another story. Read the thread.
and thats not what it means.
At the risk of going down a road too bumpy,no it doesnt.
and thats not what it means.
"No it doesnt" -- what doesnt what?
"thats not what it means" -- what's not what what means?
The lounge doesn't contain such pictures.
thats not what a(i) meansIf the model is actually 21 but appears (to a judge) to be under 18, the picture is still classed as child porn.
there is no point in arguing with him, he has his interpretation of the law which is no where near what the law actually is. if you are looking at a pic and you can't verify her age and she looks underage, yeah you should be in shit, serious shit. if you are looking at a pic of a chick that is 18 or older and there is proof she is 18, your good to go. he is full of shit and trying to prove something to someone. as i have said and he is ignoring, by his interpretation of the law, google, yahoo, everyone that does porn and makes porn available and all major movie production companies as well as countless others should be in jail on serious charges.The lounge doesn't contain such pictures.
thats not what a(i) means
Babypowder: The lounge doesn't contain such pictures.
Buttercup: I'm not going to name which threads contain these photos, but they're plainly displayed in those threads.
Buttercup:If the model is actually 21 but appears (to a judge) to be under 18, the picture is still classed as child porn.
Babypowder: thats not what a(i) means
Buttercup: Look at the terb pictures. Mostly, they come under a(ii) but I included a(i) to make up the set. Seriously: given that the models are over 18, but they look to be under 18, would you care to explain your theory as to why the terb pictures don't come under either a(i) (under-18 sex act) or a(ii) (under-18 genital display)?
P.S. If you have no sensible coherent thoughts on the matter, like ??, don't bother replying. (Not that terbites generally are inhibited from posting by such considerations as lack of coherent thought.)
Buttercup: I'm not going to name which threads contain these photos, but they're plainly displayed in those threads.
Buttercup:If the model is actually 21 but appears (to a judge) to be under 18, the picture is still classed as child porn.
Babypowder: thats not what a(i) means
Buttercup: Look at the terb pictures. Mostly, they come under a(ii) but I included a(i) to make up the set. Seriously: given that the models are over 18, but they look to be under 18, would you care to explain your theory as to why the terb pictures don't come under either a(i) (under-18 sex act) or a(ii) (under-18 genital display)?
P.S. If you have no sensible coherent thoughts on the matter, like ??, don't bother replying. (Not that terbites generally are inhibited from posting by such considerations as lack of coherent thought.)
If you ask nicely, I'd bet Fred would be willing to cancel your membership, remove all your posts and will disavow any knowledge of your actions.“child pornography” means
(a) a visual representation
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;
The TERB Lounge contains a number of threads that contain pictures that meet that definition. If the model is actually 21 but appears (to a judge) to be under 18, the picture is still classed as child porn. It is not a question of verifying the model's age.
The verb DEPICT has 3 senses:
1. show in, or as in, a picture
2. give a description of
3. make a portrait of
OK lets reword the law in all 3 senses.
1) That shows a person who is or is show in, or as in, a picture as being under the age of eighteen years.
2) That shows a person who is or is given a description of as being under the age of eighteen years.
3) That shows a person who is or is make a portrait of as being under the age of eighteen years.
1. show in, or as in, a picture
2. give a description of
3. make a portrait of
OK lets reword the law in all 3 senses.
1) That shows a person who is or is show in, or as in, a picture as being under the age of eighteen years.
2) That shows a person who is or is given a description of as being under the age of eighteen years.
3) That shows a person who is or is make a portrait of as being under the age of eighteen years.
Lupe Fuentes who looked seventeen bailed this man out with a bogus child porn charge.
http://business.avn.com/articles/le...-Man-From-Bogus-Child-Porn-Charge-394003.html
http://business.avn.com/articles/le...-Man-From-Bogus-Child-Porn-Charge-394003.html
im questioning if you ever had a coherent thought in your life.Look at the terb pictures. Mostly, they come under a(ii)
a woman that looks under-age to you isn't a depiction of an underage girl. theres no context to it. if there were screen shots from a porno parody of a highschool movie (ie breakfast club) then it would apply. and since these images are linked to reputable sites then the person would have done what he was supposed to do legaly. if you were really genuinely concerned you would have let the admin know already. but right now all you are doing is finger fucking your keyboard and nothing more.
just because you aren't comfortable with looking at a grown woman with a cups and a shaved twat doesn't mean normal people should feel guilty because they don't.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-crowded-airline-flight&p=3890130#post3890130
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...n-on-his-laptop-during-crowded-airline-flight
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...er-boyfriend&p=3846573&highlight=#post3846573
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-of-hotties&p=3799860&highlight=#post3799860
I think Buttercup you need serious help
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...n-on-his-laptop-during-crowded-airline-flight
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...er-boyfriend&p=3846573&highlight=#post3846573
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...e-of-hotties&p=3799860&highlight=#post3799860
I think Buttercup you need serious help
Watch the news interview of Lupe... She said the poor guy spent 4 months in jail while waiting for his trial. At the trial the prosecution brought in a forensics expert that testified that the girl in the videos, Lupe, was no older then 12. She was really 18 when the video was made.Lupe Fuentes who looked seventeen bailed this man out with a bogus child porn charge.
Does Lupe look 18 ? Could the same thing happen in Canada?
I'm feeling lazy right now and I don't feel like looking for the links, but Lupe Fuentes is wanted on child pornography charges in Colombia and Spain. Her and her husband Pablo Lapiedra (a Spanish pornographer) have made a bunch of porn movies in Colombia with some underage schoolgirls. Pablo Lapiedra has been arrested and is awaiting extradition in a jail in Budapest and Lupe has an outstanding Interpol arrest warrant on her and is believed to be hiding in the US. Call it irony...
If I were dictator of Canada, I would make it NOT a crime merely to possess imaginary-child-porn. That includes cartoons you draw, and stories you write, for yourself, for your own perverted reason. I would make it not a crime on what IMO is the very sound grounds, that no person under 18 suffers any harm.
I would also make it NOT a crime, merely to possess a photo in which the model is displaying her genital area, where the model is proved to be over 18, even though she appears to be under 18.
Disagree with these views if you will. But if you disagree, I would ask you to point out how any actual child under 18 is, or might be, harmed by your mere possession. Expressing the wish that I rot in hell for holding these views does not count.
The fact that some terbites apparently have not yet completely grasped is that, in Canada, those things ARE crimes.
IMO, it is inescapable that some of the models in some of the photos displayed in some terb threads appear to be under 18.
If you are happy that these terb pictures fall outside Canada's definition of child porn, good luck to you. IMO, they are covered.
I would also make it NOT a crime, merely to possess a photo in which the model is displaying her genital area, where the model is proved to be over 18, even though she appears to be under 18.
Disagree with these views if you will. But if you disagree, I would ask you to point out how any actual child under 18 is, or might be, harmed by your mere possession. Expressing the wish that I rot in hell for holding these views does not count.
The fact that some terbites apparently have not yet completely grasped is that, in Canada, those things ARE crimes.
IMO, it is inescapable that some of the models in some of the photos displayed in some terb threads appear to be under 18.
If you are happy that these terb pictures fall outside Canada's definition of child porn, good luck to you. IMO, they are covered.
