I dont get it.. No one is in jail for this?

wtf

Srsly.. Wtf.. shes 15yrs old and she can go partially topless on a mag cover? but yet u can get arrested for clicking hot 17yr old sluts want to slurp ur cock?

Doesnt make any sense.... fk this countries stupid laws.

It's pretty easy man. One is clearly child pornography, the other, clearly, isn't.

Is this one of our AF members?

7:13 PM Dillon Says:

i am a 15 year old boy and i think she is terific role model for girls and deserves a second chance.

hmmmmmmm those were some nice 15 minutes of google imageing .. . . . .. . . .

i'd hit it.

fucking snaggle-toothed jesus whore

also, the reason as to why it's allowed, is cause it's art

milleniahead wrote:wtf

Srsly.. Wtf.. shes 15yrs old and she can go partially topless on a mag cover? but yet u can get arrested for clicking hot 17yr old sluts want to slurp ur cock?

Doesnt make any sense.... fk this countries stupid laws.

What are you seeing? Her back? (as in, shoulders, not butt). Is that porn?

Hm, then people who sell those size 0 no shoulder shirts should be in jail too.

If anything they should be in jail for that incest suggesting pic of her and her dad

omni knows what's up...

Aristotle wrote:omni knows what's up...

i reckon we all did ?

i just figure if a mag is gonna show a 15yr old nakie its not right. I didnt see the picture of the mag but still, bitch is naked and shes 15. While she may not be suckin meatpole its still wrong i think. Besides to catch a predator guy would so have u arrested for lookin at those pics..



btw did u hear the show is on a hiatus for some guy committing suicide right outside because of that guy.

Not all nudity has to be sexual.

There's the pic.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2008/04/miley_cyrus.html

Turbofrog wrote:Not all nudity has to be sexual.

There's the pic.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2008/04/miley_cyrus.html

I would go further and say that not all sexual nudity is pornography. Frequently it is. But a very good case can be made for artistic license.

google jock sturges. you want to talk about why somebody isn't in jail...

TheWoerus wrote:

Turbofrog wrote:Not all nudity has to be sexual.

There's the pic.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/art/2008/04/miley_cyrus.html

I would go further and say that not all sexual nudity is pornography. Frequently it is. But a very good case can be made for artistic license.

So basically u can call that artistic and leave it as that?

But not believe that, that mag cover probably generated a billion hits on google for miley cyrus porn or nude pics or wuteva. Reason why im sayin all this is, after watchin how to catch a predator, they trick and lure these bastards in with false claims, pictures, conversations etc...

This pic is just a way to evoke all these child molesters and shit out here to continue to search for underage girls and/or push that one person over the edge and just say "after seein this cyrus bitch i gotta get me some 15 yr old buns"

I just find it funny that we can have a show dedicated to ousting these guys, have cops ready and willing to put a couple hot ones in them, but yet let r kelly off with nothing, and promote underage smut with this shit. I dont get it. Me personally couldnt care less shes on the cover cause i kno im not a pedophile. But what about the pedophiles out here who run across this?.. Will that illecit repressed memories or make them want to do something now?!?! who knows... anything on such a huge scale like underage child wuteva u call it, should be monitored by our media/mags... whoever let a 15yr old nude on the cover should be fired then sent to jail. me i rly dont care if she is on the cover or not but still i think a 15yr old nude on a cover isnt art. its fuckin stupid. especially since they actually have a show dedicated to catching child molestors

I think the intent of the photo is what makes it different. That was meant to be a portrait, a piece of art, whereas most child porn is explicit and sexual.

I mean, anything can be turned sexual by a reader --- even a relatively mundane one of someone, say, tying their shoes or smoking a cigarette. If we were to monitor anything that was possibly exciting, there'd be no photos of children ever.

In any case, I don't see the big deal about the cover and I think Disney needs to unclench their asshole.

xtine wrote:I think the intent of the photo is what makes it different. That was meant to be a portrait, a piece of art, whereas most child porn is explicit and sexual.

I mean, anything can be turned sexual by a reader --- even a relatively mundane one of someone, say, tying their shoes or smoking a cigarette. If we were to monitor anything that was possibly exciting, there'd be no photos of children ever.

In any case, I don't see the big deal about the cover and I think Disney needs to unclench their asshole.

tru but bitch is naked. art or not thats a 15yr old tittie flappin around somewhere underneath that.


and yea i see ur point but i just hate that to catch a predator dude.

there's always underage titty flapping underneath *any* pic of teen girls.

Ascona wrote:

Aristotle wrote:omni knows what's up...

i reckon we all did ?

I was serious when I said this man was getting into pedophilia. He does mean what he said. We need to ban him before he gets us into trouble when he gets arrested for child porn.

The_Edge wrote:

Ascona wrote:

Aristotle wrote:omni knows what's up...

i reckon we all did ?

I was serious when I said this man was getting into pedophilia. He does mean what he said. We need to ban him before he gets us into trouble when he gets arrested for child porn.

if we'd ban you, it'd be alot easier, you wouldn't get in any trouble because of me, nad we'd be rid of you.

Ascona wrote:

The_Edge wrote:

Ascona wrote:

Aristotle wrote:omni knows what's up...

i reckon we all did ?

I was serious when I said this man was getting into pedophilia. He does mean what he said. We need to ban him before he gets us into trouble when he gets arrested for child porn.

if we'd ban you, it'd be alot easier, you wouldn't get in any trouble because of me, nad we'd be rid of you.

:whatever: