Xavier

New York, NY

#772 Dec 28, 2012
FortySomething wrote:
<quoted text>
See my answer above.
If someone is saying that a site has photos of young boys posed in their underwear with their legs open,why would you assume that's a CFNM site? If someone says directly,"the link has child pornography", then how can it be understood any other way?
MaltaMon

Reading, PA

#773 Dec 28, 2012
Xavier wrote:
<quoted text>
If someone is saying that a site has photos of young boys posed in their underwear with their legs open,why would you assume that's a CFNM site? If someone says directly,"the link has child pornography", then how can it be understood any other way?
And worse, he acknowledged last weekend that he'd looked at the kiddie porn site that DJW posted. He said that the pictures of underaged boys both nude and posed in underwear were "clearly photoshopped" and that therefore "no one was harmed". He knew that the content wasn't CFNM--that it was, instead, young boys--but he thinks we've forgotten that he'd seen it before I did. He's not even a comptent liar, much less a good liar. To be competent you never underestimate those to whom you lie; to be GOOD at lying through your teeth you must have a better memory than anyone else's.
MaltaMon

Reading, PA

#774 Dec 28, 2012
SixtySomething is just a lousy liar and an idiot. He clearly has something to hide. And he has all but outed himself as a pedophile, a boy lover.
MaltaMon

Reading, PA

#775 Dec 29, 2012
DJW wrote:
The answer is here!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_v._Ohio
Even if the First Amendment did not categorically forbid the government to ban the possession of child pornography, Osborne argued that the Ohio statute under which he was convicted was overbroad.
A ban on speech is "overbroad" if it outlaws both prohibited speech as well as a substantial amount of legitimate speech.
The statute, as written, banned depictions of nudity, and the Court had previously held that nudity was protected expression.
But the Ohio Supreme Court had held that the statute only applied to nudity that "constitutes a lewd exhibition or involves a graphic focus on the genitals, and where the person depicted is neither the child nor the ward of the person charged" with violating it.
Furthermore, the Ohio Supreme Court had required that the defendant had to know that the images depicted children before being convicted of possession of child pornography. By narrowing the scope of the statute in these ways, the Ohio Supreme Court had sufficiently tailored the law only to those images most harmful to children.
However, the Court reversed Osborne's conviction because, after reviewing the record of the trial, it observed that the State did not present evidence that the images were "lewd" within the meaning of the statute. Because lewdness was an essential element of the crime, the State had not satisfied its obligation to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think you should study US law more censored there is a difference between nudity and pornography!
In case anybody missed this gem of a justification for his posting of a link to child pornography. Remember that this is the guy who has insisted, ad nauseum, that all nudity of boys and men should be banned. Don't ever come back, DJW. And it doesn't matter that the site to which you directed us is Russian. You accessed the child-pornography site and posted the link on Topix from your computer in the UK. You know that what you did is illegal. Why else would you unearth an Ohio case that has nothing to do with your crime?

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#776 Dec 29, 2012
Xavier wrote:
<quoted text>
If someone is saying that a site has photos of young boys posed in their underwear with their legs open,why would you assume that's a CFNM site? If someone says directly,"the link has child pornography", then how can it be understood any other way?
The pictures had naked children in them. Mostly the boys were naked. The pictures I saw seem quite innocent. Just because children are naked doesn't mean its sexual, even if its a boy with only underwear, lying down on his back with his legs wide open.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#777 Dec 29, 2012
MaltaMon wrote:
SixtySomething is just a lousy liar and an idiot. He clearly has something to hide. And he has all but outed himself as a pedophile, a boy lover.
Unlike you my sad girl, I'm registered with Topix. I have nothing to hide, but admittedly I am unwilling to be totally open since it would invite insults from the like of you. Lets face it, you've become a troll. Most do if they spend too much time here.
MaltaMon

Reading, PA

#778 Dec 29, 2012
You realize, don't you, that there isn't a judge in all of Britain who will look at the photos on that site and believe that you mistook any of the boys they display for males who are at least 18 years of age. Better go find that rock I mentioned in an earlier post.
MaltaMon

Reading, PA

#779 Dec 29, 2012
FortySomething wrote:
<quoted text>
The pictures had naked children in them. Mostly the boys were naked. The pictures I saw seem quite innocent. Just because children are naked doesn't mean its sexual, even if its a boy with only underwear, lying down on his back with his legs wide open.
I rest my case.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#780 Dec 29, 2012
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> And worse, he acknowledged last weekend that he'd looked at the kiddie porn site that DJW posted. He said that the pictures of underaged boys both nude and posed in underwear were "clearly photoshopped" and that therefore "no one was harmed". He knew that the content wasn't CFNM--that it was, instead, young boys--but he thinks we've forgotten that he'd seen it before I did. He's not even a comptent liar, much less a good liar. To be competent you never underestimate those to whom you lie; to be GOOD at lying through your teeth you must have a better memory than anyone else's.
Another case of conclusion first and cherry picking the facts second. The boys who appear nude were photo-shopped to look that way. They were probably wearing trucks at the time. I don't remember seeing any naked girls. However I only looked at the first few photos, which I found boring.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#781 Dec 29, 2012
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> I rest my case.
Isn't your thumb suffering from repetitive strain injury yet? Can't wait.
MaltaMon

Reading, PA

#782 Dec 29, 2012
FortySomething wrote:
<quoted text>
Another case of conclusion first and cherry picking the facts second. The boys who appear nude were photo-shopped to look that way. They were probably wearing trucks at the time. I don't remember seeing any naked girls. However I only looked at the first few photos, which I found boring.
"Boring"? What do those photos of naked underaged boys lack that would excite you and perhaps hold your interest?
MaltaMon

Reading, PA

#783 Dec 29, 2012
FortySomething wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike you my sad girl, I'm registered with Topix. I have nothing to hide, but admittedly I am unwilling to be totally open since it would invite insults from the like of you. Lets face it, you've become a troll. Most do if they spend too much time here.
Projection. You've been around these parts longer than I and have posted on more threads. All of them involving naked boys. "Sad girl"? So you are not heterosexual, after all. Big surprise.
MaltaMon

Reading, PA

#784 Dec 29, 2012
FortySomething wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course! It means no one was abused when the picture was taken.
Claims the hundreds of images of naked boys were all "photoshopped". That means that photos of real naked underaged boys were superimposed over those of other underaged boys who "were probably wearing trucks" (sic). AND, he added last night, that underaged boys posed suggestively, "with legs spread wide" toward the camera while clad only in very skimpy underwear briefs are "not sexual", and, therefore, not child pornography. "That means," he says, "that nobody was abused." Justice Potter Stewart, in his concurring opinion for a landmark Supreme Court case, Jacobellis v. Ohio, defined the threshold for determining what is pornography and what isn't: "I know it when I see it." I suppose that old SixtySomething, nearly 50 years on, is incapable of employing that standard. As I said, a lousy liar and an idiot.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#785 Dec 29, 2012
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> "Boring"? What do those photos of naked underaged boys lack that would excite you and perhaps hold your interest?
Authenticity and only as far as double standards in nudity between the sexes is concerned.
Malta Mon

Gordonville, PA

#786 Dec 29, 2012
FortySomething wrote:
<quoted text>
Authenticity and only as far as double standards in nudity between the sexes is concerned.
"Authenticity" is not the issue. And there is no double standard at work here--only double talk. Yours. If photos of underaged boys either nude or suggestively posed with obvious erotic intent is what you find 'boring', I wonder what you would need to get excited. From what you say, it follows that sexual abuse and the sexual exploitation of children aren't sufficient to arouse your concern. Only authenticity, which you hardly are qualified to determine... and which doesn't matter inasmuch as children are exploited--whether those are the faces of the exploited children or not. And the absence of any double standard of nudity, the standard for which in your case seems to be that if adults can be photographed nude and their nude photos promoted, sold, and exchanged, children must have the same right to be forcibly stripped, posed, and photographed.. and to have their photos promoted, sold and exchanged.
Malta Mon

Gordonville, PA

#787 Dec 29, 2012
SixtySomething, You clearly are too over the edge to notice that your reaction to these extraordinary photos of young boys isn't what nearly all adults, whether well-adjusted or even minimally so, would expect from another adult. It is instinctive for adults to protect children. You obviously are wired differently. And that renders yours a rather unsavory character.
Bob

Dorval, Canada

#788 Dec 29, 2012
MaltaMon wrote:
Pedo Bob and now DJW silenced. Who's next?

I haven't been silenced, moron, I'm still here, laughing my head off at your pompous ridiculous posts.

Hahahahahaha!
Malta Mon

Gordonville, PA

#789 Dec 29, 2012
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't been silenced, moron, I'm still here, laughing my head off at your pompous ridiculous posts.
Hahahahahaha!
You may be here, if "here" means quietly reading posts on these threads and saying nothing for weeks at a time, only to turn up briefly to post an insult to me.(Like a lo letter, indeed) Nah. You've been restrained, Bob. And it's a good thing for everybody. Find DJW so that you two can share your boy stories as you celebrate the new year together online or by telephone.
Malta Mon

Gordonville, PA

#790 Dec 29, 2012
My effort to silence you, if at times obnoxious, has succeeded. And you know it, Bobbie. If it hadn't, you'd have kept posting your naked-boy filth since October, when you all but disappeared.

As you can see, someone rose to fill the spot that you'd vacated. He's as committed as you are, albeit discernably less street-wise. I suggest that you two meet and discover all that you have in common.

Happy New Year, Pedo Baby. We love ya!
Xavier

New York, NY

#791 Dec 29, 2012
FortySomething wrote:
<quoted text>
The pictures had naked children in them. Mostly the boys were naked. The pictures I saw seem quite innocent. Just because children are naked doesn't mean its sexual, even if its a boy with only underwear, lying down on his back with his legs wide open.
A photo of a boy in his underwear lying on his back with his legs spread open is child pornography,by law.People have been convicted on less.Any adult who collects pictures of naked kids is suspect.It doesn't matter if those photos are not sexual.Just the fact that they're interested in naked kids makes them unsavory characters.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Education Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Knowing your students names 2 hr roymm 2
Exam 300-135 braindumps Fri Wendytest 1
Informatica certification PR000041 the latest e... Fri Wendytest 1
Best IBM M2050-243 exam questions and answers Fri Wendytest 1
IBM certification C2090-548 best exam questions... Fri Wendytest 1
Latest IBM C2090-549 of exam practice questions... Fri Wendytest 1
HP HP2-N49 training and testing Fri Wendytest 1
More from around the web