On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:45:32 -0500, Lee Nova wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:59:23 GMT, "gl" <noname@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
> I understand your desire to convince yourself of the legality of all
> this. But you seemed you to conveniently leave out one very important
> part of the legislation you cited.
>
> You left out the part about "lewd and lascivious". Case law has already
> shown that the term "lewd and lascivious" can apply to non-nude photos.
>
> The other part you left out is "age inappropriate clothing and
> settings".
>
> Lingerie has been legally shown to be inappropriate for young girls.
>
>
> Do I agree with that definition? HELL NO!
>
> But you do a disservice to others when you cherry-pick pieces of
> legislation that support your view while ignoring those points that
> refute it.
Dear merkens.
Please note "the internet" has no geographical markers, only linguistic.
While it may seem to most americans that everyone who speaks english must
be american, this is not so. What is "Age appropriate" to one person may
not be to another even within the same community, so talking about "laws"
has absolutely no meaning in this context.
IDIOTS
|
|