On Mon, 05 May 2008 20:21:46 GMT, Moi <Moi@Moi.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 05 May 2008 20:14:04 GMT, HMS Victor Victorian
><VictorVictorian@NBG.com> wrote:
>
>>Note that the IWF considers the term "pornography" as having a
>>somewhat legitimising effect, so they kindly request you all to refer
>>to images rather as "PRCBSA" (rather cumbersome, certainly, but please
>>see below).
>>
>>"Please note that "child pornography", "child porn" or "kiddie porn"
>>are not acceptable terms. The use of such language acts to legitimise
>>images which are not pornography, rather, they are permanent records
>>of children being sexually abused and as such should be referred to as
>>child sexual abuse images."
>>
>>The IWF's determination of what types of images constitute PRCBSA is a
>>very wide one, indeed, if one considers the number of types of groups
>>suddenly esponged from various news service providers. Is a picture
>>of a nude boy standing, casting a fishing line out on a lake shore, a
>>PRCBSA? If not, does it become a PRCBSA if one crops the image to
>>centre the viewers line of sight with the lad's genitals? If the boy
>>smiling or laughing, is he still being abused?
>>
>>Well, fear not. To paraphrase a rather succinct American judge, your
>>heroes at IWF "know it when they see it--and you should, too!"
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Victor
>
>email me if you still have my email addy
>Cheers
>Moi
Heavens!
I thought was utterly alone in here.
Where were you hiding, Moi?
Behind the divan?
No, I don't have your addie, but you have mine.
Please contact me.
VV
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
|