Eternal loli thread, classy edition.
Eternal loli thread, classy edition
Hunter Nelson
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Zachary Howard
Chase Carter
Isaiah Carter
Lucas Kelly
Isaac Price
Are loli feet classy?
Eli Jackson
Jackson Gonzalez
Benjamin Hill
Landon Garcia
No, especially when the artist has clearly never seen a foot
Jackson Campbell
Logan Smith
Levi Reed
Jason Sanchez
Chase Young
Charles Brown
Daniel Rodriguez
Mason Cox
Adam Bailey
Reminds me of a time I went to some weird educational museum and there was a wing devoted to humans, it had stuff like organs in jars, skeletons, ancient tools, this one cool thing of a cadaver sliced into pieces and cast in resin. Anyway I recall there was part of that wing which showed human growth over a life span, the classic 0-5 these things happen, 5-10, this happens 12-16, etc. And accompanying each little segment was a nude photo of a real person. As I stared at the naked picture of a real little girl, text and arrows highlighting her little funny I thought to myself 'how the fuck is this legal?' then walked away because I didn't want to be caught staring at cunny in public
Alexander Young
nice one user
Landon Smith
Medical not sexual
Jaxon Rogers
But then you could just claim any nude pic of a kid is medical
Eli Lee
I guess it was for medical and historical purposes?
Brayden Price
Feet are hard to draw, man.
Daniel Fisher
Exceptions to CP laws in the US include anything that has "serious" artistic, scientific or political value. Other exceptions would be photography taken in public of subjects dressed in a manner accepted by local community standards. I.E. jungle cunny in the rain forest is legally not CP, neither is cunny from nudist colonies. Case law has set the presidency that a legal photo remains legal even if it is cropped to focus on specific regions.
Obviously this makes it difficult for website operators as two very similar photographs could have vastly different legal status.
Wyatt Baker
could make the same argument for the face, no human actually looks like this
Daniel Robinson
And then there's weird loophole shit like Brooke Shields' early nude photo set, ruled legal.
Jaxson Thomas
Where
Aiden King
Ayden Thompson
Elijah Richardson
But wouldn't that mean you could take any number of nude pics, dump a bunch of scientific bullet points around the place, add a few arrows and bam! Legal pic.
Asher Bell
Never heard of it and don't know who that is, elaborate
Colton Robinson
Gura specifically said she doesn't wear pants man :(
Adrian Howard
>From 1981 to 1983, Shields, her mother, photographer Garry Gross, and Playboy Press were involved in litigation in the New York City Courts over the rights to photographs her mother had signed away to Gross (when dealing with models who are minors, a parent or legal guardian must sign such a release form while other agreements are subject to negotiation). Gross was the photographer of a controversial set of nude images taken in 1975 of a then ten-year-old Brooke Shields with the consent of her mother, Teri Shields, for the Playboy Press publication Sugar 'n' Spice. The images portray Shields nude, standing and sitting in a bathtub, wearing makeup and covered in oil. The courts ruled in favor of the photographer due to a strange twist in New York law. It would have been otherwise had Brooke Shields been considered a child "performer" rather than a model.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Jose Jones
google it
it was considered artistic or something, the photographer had an argument to back that up and everything. plus she isn't put into sexually explicit, overly-revealing poses, so by comparison, pornography is quite a leap beyond those photos
Evan Bell
There is actually quite a bit of that type of content.
The rules are vague. You could make that argument but when it went to court you would have to find experts to back your claim that it has serious scientific value, and the state would have it's own experts arguing the inverse. One photo may have serious scientific value but a trove of such photos likely would not have any additional value.
Ethan Johnson
What? That cannot still be legal. All I need is a camera and some shitty modelling business and I can oil up naked kids?
Mason James
shit went from loli images to some deep shit real quick
Lucas Williams
sauce?
Nolan Anderson
I would guess it'd be highly unlikely to have the same outcome in today's courts. But in the case of those particular photos the ruling still stands.
Charles Robinson
>trove of such photos likely would not have any additional value
But isn't the entire point of science to have vast amounts of data? infact the more data you have the more weight and value whatever you're proving or showing has, so long as all the data agrees with your point
Adam Hughes
Brook Shields in a Bathtub is very known.
She was 10 year old back then.
Also in "Pretty Baby" movie her cunny was on display few times
Benjamin Cook
Well it's interesting that the laws around not even loli, but irl is still somehow so nebulous
David Fisher
sculpture is such an underappreciated medium these days
Charles White
Surely those are now illegal to sell. I mean yeah she may have won the court case and kept the rights to those things, but there's no way she'd be allowed to distribute them in this day and age.
Grayson Collins
that is true, then shall we go back to posting stuff?
Jeremiah Martinez
That likely wouldn't, but surprisingly similar things are permitted.
"Serious" artistic value goes a long way for a bonafide artist who is politically well connected.
Sally Mann and Betsy Schneider are well renowned by patrons like John Podesta.
CP wasn't really made illegal until the mid 80's, before that there were hard core CP magazines in open distribution in the US.
Nicholas Hill
Why is her finger out beckoning you to eat her snatch? Am I the only one seeing that?
Asher Jones
Tyler Campbell
You would still get a lot of backlash especially in burgerland, but yes, a lot of child nudity is still present in modern photography. And I mean not just naked kids on the nudist beach, but actually posing naked.
I've seen set with naked boy about 12-14 yo, posing all naked on the chair with his dick visible. If I remember correctly the photographer was his mom, it was year ago or so, I can't remember. It was never widely heard of.
Ian Hill
Do as you will, I wish you luck. The law is intentionally vague. If you were a published scientist studying developmental biology there is likely much you could get away with. As a Yea Forums neet living in the basement your arguments are likely to fall flat.
Cameron Watson
everyone in this thread should kill themselves
Jason Long
You first.
Live stream it please.
Elijah Gutierrez
Mason Gray
Why not?
David Cook
Is that statue just like, out in the woods somewhere? If I went hiking and saw that I'd be terrified of some death cult being around
Jonathan Green
You know that does make me wonder how many pediatricians are pedos
Easton Reyes
Elijah Moore
David White
>Open google
>Type in "George Krause. Mother and son, 1985"
>Click
Yes, it's legal
Zachary Turner
Based on what you're showing me it's either a mass produced replica of some famous ancient Roman marble statue, or something some dude knocked up in his backyard
Leo Jones
No one has ever really given a shit about underage guys when it comes to laws about cp.
Andrew Lopez
Anne Of Buckinghamshire
This was a commission for a specific place by the banks of a tributary of The River Thames in a garden. The garden has a connection to Anne Boleyn before she left to live in France hence the name. The retired couple had seen Robert's "Mary" (or Lotte, Workhouse Waif) in Hampshire and wanted a sculpture in their garden. Here shown in the original clay as well.
This is a popular work and has been on exhibition in London, Purbeck and the Channel Islands.
Bronze
Edition of 9
A couple still available
45 inches high
Guide price (see pricing Pricing page under My Work) £14,500