Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GtoRA2 on April 03, 2003, 03:12:55 PM

Title: Childporn.
Post by: GtoRA2 on April 03, 2003, 03:12:55 PM: Ok so I am in the Military history section of borders. and on one of the shelves is a pair of books, they do not belong in this section, (or any in my mind).

I look the cover of one a look, and it looks like an art book, photos of a slinky blonde, on the cover so I pop it open, as I flip through the pages it comes to young girls prepubescent girls naked in the books so I put it down.

I look at the one under it and it is even worse. I mean it looked like Playboy but with young girls in it.

I thought this was against the law??

Not art in my book. Any one know what the laws are? I did not think to get the name of the books. I didn't look at them very long out of embarrassment.
Title: Childporn.
Post by: Martlet on April 03, 2003, 03:15:13 PM: unfortunately, there is a fine line between art and porn. That's why they are always trying to crack down on some of these websites. They run under the guise of artistic freedom, but they charge 19.95 to middle age pedophiles.
Title: Childporn.
Post by: Elfie on April 03, 2003, 03:33:42 PM: Quote
but they charge 19.95 to middle age pedophiles.

I see you know how much they charge..........

:D :D
Title: Childporn.
Post by: Martlet on April 03, 2003, 04:24:13 PM: Quote
Originally posted by Elfie
I see you know how much they charge..........

:D :D

I saw your credit card bill.

:p
Title: Re: Childporn.
Post by: Kanth on April 03, 2003, 04:31:57 PM: If the girls are under 18 and naked they don't belong there.

Have a word with the manager.

Quote
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Ok so I am in the Military history section of borders. and on one of the shelves is a pair of books, they do not belong in this section, (or any in my mind).

I look the cover of one a look, and it looks like an art book, photos of a slinky blonde, on the cover so I pop it open, as I flip through the pages it comes to young girls prepubescent girls naked in the books so I put it down.

I look at the one under it and it is even worse. I mean it looked like Playboy but with young girls in it.

I thought this was against the law??

Not art in my book. Any one know what the laws are? I did not think to get the name of the books. I didn't look at them very long out of embarrassment.
Title: Re: Re: Childporn.
Post by: Martlet on April 03, 2003, 05:10:57 PM: Quote
Originally posted by Kanth
If the girls are under 18 and naked they don't belong there.

Have a word with the manager.

I agree, but unfortunately it is perfectly legal.

Lack of morals isn't a crime.

If enough people complain, though, then I'm sure they'll be pulled. Contact your local church or similar organization, they usually know who the best group would be to get involved, then they'll organize it for you.

I probably wouldn't do it yourself if you like your job. They can't fire you for it, but it would surely put you on the poopoo list.
Title: Childporn.
Post by: OIO on April 03, 2003, 05:16:28 PM: yeah, the child "porn" thing has a grey side.

I believe that showing pics of naked kids is not "porn" unless they are doing pornographic "poses" or actually engaging IN sex acts.

So as long as they are just standing there naked in a cute background its not porn.. according to whats in paper.

Which is utter bull**** imo.
Title: Re: Re: Re: Childporn.
Post by: Kanth on April 03, 2003, 05:20:26 PM: No, it isn't.

http://www.missingkids.com/html/ncmec_default_ec_chldporn_laws.html

OIO if that's true it is utter bull**** there is no reason to display a minor naked.

Quote
Originally posted by Martlet
I agree, but unfortunately it is perfectly legal.
Title: Martlet
Post by: GtoRA2 on April 03, 2003, 05:21:00 PM: Why would I get fired? I don't work for borders?

hmm yeah this was purley like playboy, no sex, but it was sexual.
Title: Childporn.
Post by: john9001 on April 03, 2003, 05:25:16 PM: contact your local DA , the DA will either arrest the manager or explain the anti-porn laws to you, if you don't like the law,work to change it.
Title: Re: Martlet
Post by: Martlet on April 03, 2003, 06:03:57 PM: Quote
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Why would I get fired? I don't work for borders?

hmm yeah this was purley like playboy, no sex, but it was sexual.

sorry, when you said you were "in" the military history section of borders, I thought you meant you were assigned to that department.

my bad.
Title: Childporn.
Post by: OIO on April 03, 2003, 06:04:17 PM: I agree with you kanth, it is BS.

However, they claim its "art".

If I could get my hands on those people i'd found a new form of expression by joining their lips with their anuses.

*imagines the finished product*

aah, yes, art!
Title: Childporn.
Post by: hawk220 on April 03, 2003, 06:06:19 PM: it all depends on the context.

Pornography, by definition, is an image designed to elicit a sexually arousing response. Naked children playing in a sprinkler could just be art. A naked child sliding down a big pole wearing fishnet stockings and mascara..well, that could be another thing.

look at the context.
Title: Childporn.
Post by: GtoRA2 on April 03, 2003, 06:22:47 PM: hawk220
Not that I looked at every page, but the few I saw, where naked young girls, and I mean girls, IE they had not hit puberty...

Posed naked or half naked in poses you would find in playboy or pent house.

Clearly a padifiles dream, and very sickening. In fact, I was so emberased I touched them I left hoping no one would think they where mine! :(
Title: Childporn.
Post by: hawk220 on April 03, 2003, 06:28:27 PM: erotic poses on little kids is some sick toejam. There are some artsy-fartsy types of naked kids pix that are considered artistic by some (playing on the beach or innocent stuff like that), but playboy type poses with children and sexual overtones is certainly not art IMO.
Title: Childporn.
Post by: Martlet on April 03, 2003, 08:21:06 PM: Quote
Originally posted by hawk220
erotic poses on little kids is some sick toejam. There are some artsy-fartsy types of naked kids pix that are considered artistic by some (playing on the beach or innocent stuff like that), but playboy type poses with children and sexual overtones is certainly not art IMO.

The problem is, the stuff is catered to pedophiles. For example, a friend of mine is a photographer. She has hundreds of photos around her house. One of which is her two daughters standing outside naked, muddy, and hosing each other down. They look to be about 8 or 9, and when taken in context, the picture is really cute. It was something they did on their own, and she "captured the moment".

Put that stuff online, and it's a pedophiles dream. And that's just the true "art". Now, people recreate those moments, label it as art, and market it.
Title: Childporn.
Post by: Elfie on April 03, 2003, 08:52:12 PM: Quote
Originally posted by Martlet
I saw your credit card bill.

:p

We don't have any credit cards, had to be someone else's ya saw :p
Title: Childporn.
Post by: rpm on April 03, 2003, 10:55:19 PM: Don't know what book you were looking at but it may have been one by Maplethorp. Cincinatti had a big uproar over one of his Art Exebitions
Title: Childporn.
Post by: gofaster on April 04, 2003, 08:52:01 AM: That book wasn't by Anne Geddes was it?
Title: Looked up both of them on amazon.
Post by: GtoRA2 on April 04, 2003, 10:27:47 AM: Neither looked like what I was looking at.
Title: Childporn.
Post by: LePaul on April 04, 2003, 11:13:10 AM: Sounds like you stumbled on a book about nudism.

We had customers upset over that when I worked for an ISP...the images/binaries on the news server.

The hard core pre-teen crap was offlimits and not there. Yet the nudism stuff was ok. As mentioned above, its depends on the fine line of art versus erotic poses/sexual gestures

Then again, us taxpayers fun art programs where elephant poop and anti-christian thingies are "wonderful" expressions of art in fancy museums....

Sorry...I'm all for gawking and mentally undressing the busty 17 year old down the street. Pre Teen stuff...just aint right...