Topic: Is the Doctor right? If you slightly photoshop a child porn picture, does it stop being child porn?
+Anonymous A — 12.6 years ago #31,823
The Doctor's defense for what happened a few days ago is a bold and unusual one, and I'm interested to know if it holds water, legally speaking.
Let's say someone - The Doctor for example - has pictures of child pornography saved to his computer. He then Photoshops into the corner of it another little picture, and claims he was just "creating a new and different piece of art". Is this picture now not child pornography? Would this hold up in court? And if so, why do all pedophiles not do it?
Let's say someone - The Doctor for example - has pictures of child pornography saved to his computer. He then Photoshops into the corner of it another little picture, and claims he was just "creating a new and different piece of art". Is this picture now not child pornography? Would this hold up in court? And if so, why do all pedophiles not do it?
+Anonymous B — 12.6 years ago, 5 minutes later[T] [B] #366,315
So you admit that the original artist drew child pornography?
+Morbid !vbsvhaneDY — 12.6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #366,317
TGcomix = CPcomix·Anonymous A (OP) — 12.6 years ago, 0 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #366,318
@366,315 (B)
Yes, absolutely. I agree with you that those pictures are child pornography. You are right about this. I think it is child pornography, you think it is child pornography (you used the word "admit", which means you believe it to be child porn), and most importantly, The Doctor considers the pictures child pornography (he himself labelled them such).
That's why his explanation for why he had them on his computer is so fascinating, and I'm wondering if his excuse for having child porn on his computer would hold up in court.
Yes, absolutely. I agree with you that those pictures are child pornography. You are right about this. I think it is child pornography, you think it is child pornography (you used the word "admit", which means you believe it to be child porn), and most importantly, The Doctor considers the pictures child pornography (he himself labelled them such).
That's why his explanation for why he had them on his computer is so fascinating, and I'm wondering if his excuse for having child porn on his computer would hold up in court.
+Anonymous D — 12.6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #366,321
Because pedophiles masturbate to those pictures and removing the erogenous area makes a masturbatory image useless. This is why tv shows can use mosaic censoring to include nudity without cutting the scene from broadcast.
+Anonymous E — 12.6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #366,322
+Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 12.6 years ago, 20 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #366,327
·Anonymous A (OP) — 12.6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #366,329
@366,321 (D)
But as Negi wrote above, you're talking about when they blur out or otherwise obscure the actual 'porn' part of the child porn. This thread is about what The Doctor did, i.e adding a picture to the side of what Anon B has called the 'child pornography', but with the original picture still fully visible. Would that change its status as child pornography?
But as Negi wrote above, you're talking about when they blur out or otherwise obscure the actual 'porn' part of the child porn. This thread is about what The Doctor did, i.e adding a picture to the side of what Anon B has called the 'child pornography', but with the original picture still fully visible. Would that change its status as child pornography?
+Anonymous G — 12.6 years ago, 41 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #366,336
nice madpost, bobbymadcomix+The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 12.6 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #366,391
+Anonymous I — 12.6 years ago, 32 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #366,396
·Anonymous D — 12.6 years ago, 3 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[T] [B] #366,436
@366,329 (A)
Chris Hansen's head is covering the majority of the girls body in the pic with the shower head. That doesn't constitute "fully visible". I'm going to pretend you didn't just cite a troll using a public tripcode to support your argument.
Chris Hansen's head is covering the majority of the girls body in the pic with the shower head. That doesn't constitute "fully visible". I'm going to pretend you didn't just cite a troll using a public tripcode to support your argument.
(Edited 29 seconds later.)
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.