Re: This guy posts sexy pre-teen pics in plain view!

In article <Xns99928FCC15B26h2f11xx@66.250.146.159>, head2fat
<head2fat@nowhere.NET> wrote:


>
> I guess that the Alabama photographer that Webe Web dealt with wasn't
> always upfront with the parents about the kinds of shots he was taking.

I'm fairly sure that two of his main models whose photos he was sending
to Webe were his own daughters.

Tongue-in-cheek, I hope he was arrested for bad-taste talentless work!
Those girls are dogs and he has no talent at all for photography.

> Of course, there was also the issue of transporting questionably explicit
> materials across state borders. Does the fact Hardman is not selling site
> subscriptions matter?

No.

>
> If anyone here has any legal insight into this, I would very much
> appreciate their input.

The charging of Webe sent a cold shiver throughout the industry. I am
not a lawyer but it's my job (webmaster) to know more about the law,
specially US law, than the average layman does. Nothing I have seen on
the Webe site came anywhere near offending against US law so the
assumption is that either there is more to it that we have not been
told yet, or the prosecutor is up for re-election or is a right-wing
fundamentalist christian asshole.

If Webe is later convicted on the strength only of its published pics
then all US-based webmasters are at risk.

>
> Upon close inspection, it does look like Hardman's producing eye candy
> for pedophiles, but what's wrong with that?!

Exactly. Nothing on his site is illegal, either.

This is more a story about ignorant, hypocritical, fucking moronic
journalists who know almost nothing about the internet, suddenly having
one eye opened. I would love to see them have a fucking heart attack to
see some of the old LS/BDC material!

> Nowadays, young girls dress
> like that to go to the mall and the beach all the time!  If I can look at
> sexily clad underage girls (by US standards) in public, why shouldn't I
> be able to view the same thing on the web?!
>
> Anyway, visit the website and see for yourself.
>
> http://www.dhprostudios.tv/


I didn't re-visit the journalists comments above but, from memory, she
even makes an ass of herself by referring to girls in latex. Well, you
don't have to be an industrial chemist to know the difference between
latex and vinyl. Morons!



> Does liking to look at LGs make me a pedophile?  Possibly!  Does looking
> make me want to molest LGs?  Definitely not!   And it's for the same
> reason that enjoying looking at swimsuit or runway models does not make
> me want to molest or rape _them_!

It's such an obvious analogy I'm surprised we haven't read of any
defendant making the point in court. All these fucking antis waffle on
and on and on about how pedophiles should not be allowed anywhere near
kids. No one ever suggests that "normal" heterosxual men should be kept
away from adult women in case they are motivated to rape.

One parting point I'll make: We in here know that there is a world of
difference between a pedophile and a child molester. I hate molesters
with as much passion as do the antis. What interests me, from an
academic point of view, is just how many molesters there seem to be in
America. Britain too.

In most other countries, the fact of a child abduction or forceable
rape (as opposed to "statutory rape" which, in 99% of cases, is really
a mutually-enjoyable, consenting encounter) is extremely rare. What is
it about the UK-USA bipole, that leads to so many cases of real child
abuse involving lack of consent, injury, even death?

I'm a news addict so I devour all daily news vigorously. I spend a part
of my time in an English-speaking country and I can tell you that a
case of true child molestation is so rare I can't even remember reading
about the last one. All cases that reach the courts are clearly
consenting, loving, _harmless_ situations.

I think the difference is the harshness of the penalties meted out. In
the UK-USA dipole, penalties for any form of underage sex even
including casual caressing or even a fleeting touch, can earn you life
without parole. A much harsher penalty, in many cases, than
manslaughter, drink-driving causing death, adult rape or bank robbery
with a deadly weapon.

Harsh penalties have never been a deterrant in any crime scenario. The
only true deterrant is the offender's assessment of the likelihood of
being detected. Harsh penalties only increase the risk of the offender
disposing of the evidence.

In short, part of the world has gone mad. People on other planets must
be laughing their heads off. Many in the non-english-speaking world
surely are. When I'm not in this particular english-speaking country, I
am living in an eastern european country. And I can assure you the
people there are seriously laid-back about such things. While Americans
have heart attacks about "stealing the innocence and damaging for life"
17 year old girls, where I spend most of my time the six year olds are
already well advanced in the art of initiating harmless game-play.
Serious encounters with adults are common by age 10.

Oh, a postscript. That Jack McLellan guy is a moron. Doing much harm to
the cause of "normal" pedophilia. My recommended philosophy: look but
don't touch, and...keep your fucking mouth shut!
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]