Voice of !WisdomHsuU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later[^][v]#155,973
That's a load of Stockholm Syndrome.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^][v]#155,978
That's pretty sad. Were the pictures inappropriate?
Anon A !!N1RK9z/pr joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 20 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^][v]#155,993
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Not as inappropriate as the FBI's response. The pictures were tame. No nudity, no sexual poses, no inappropriate close-ups. However, bathing suits were often featured, and it's not hard to imagine what sort of person would pay $30 a month to access new sets.
None of the four models on the linked YouTube channel felt victimized (except by the state). One claimed the experience was the "highlight of their life".
hamfist !!mtq555+/1 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^][v]#155,995
LEGALIZE CP
VOTE RON PAUL 2012
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^][v]#156,000
@155,993 (Anon A !!N1RK9z/pr)
Were they overtly sexual?
swamplights !!V3J448+/B double-posted this 15 years ago, 19 seconds later, 40 minutes after the original post[^][v]#156,001
@155,995 (hamfist !!mtq555+/1)
Cool it and act like an adult for once.
Falco !PZmcClOUDk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 41 minutes after the original post[^][v]#156,005
Why would you look at pictures of kids in bathing suits in the first place?
forget the little shits, they need better things in their lives besides that.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^][v]#156,009
@previous (Falco !PZmcClOUDk)
But that might not be a bad life. There are legitimate child bathing suit models.
Falco !PZmcClOUDk replied with this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 44 minutes after the original post[^][v]#156,012
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
this doesn't sound "legitimate".
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 46 minutes after the original post[^][v]#156,016
@previous (Falco !PZmcClOUDk)
But who judges? Were the children were fully clothed and obviously not traumatized? Were any of those girls molested?
Falco !PZmcClOUDk replied with this 15 years ago, 58 seconds later, 47 minutes after the original post[^][v]#156,017
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B) > But who judges? Were the children were fully clothed and obviously not traumatized?
bathing suits don't count as fully clothed..
> Were any of those girls molested?
we can't prove they weren't.
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 48 minutes after the original post[^][v]#156,019
@previous (Falco !PZmcClOUDk)
Bathing suits don't count? Also can you prove anyone wasn't molested?
Falco !PZmcClOUDk replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 49 minutes after the original post[^][v]#156,024
> Why would you look at pictures of kids in bathing suits in the first place?
LOLthis, I've seen plenty kids in bathing gear and in the nude and never understood the appeal.
Pedos gonna pedo while the rest of looks on disgust/disbelief I suppose.
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 58 minutes after the original post[^][v]#156,045
Exploiting your children for something like this is so very wrong, that being said, I don't see anything technically illegal about it.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#156,047
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Maybe exploiting your child for any reason is wrong, but people love their child actors.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#156,056
> can you prove anyone wasn't molested? > no we can't, thats the point.
So, people should go to fucking prison because they can't prove abuse never took place? That means anyone can go to prison on unproven suspicions.
(Edited 50 seconds later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#156,057
@156,047 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Well this case of exploitation is like, really fucking wrong. I agree exploiting kids for any reason is wrong, but for something like this... what kind of parent does that?
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#156,059
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
What about Britney Spears who was pushed into the sexual limelight when she was underage? People loved her.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#156,065
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Did she do that on her own accord though? Besides, that's not exactly taking pictures of your preteen daughter only to sell the pics to fucking pedophiles. A teenager is already awakening sexually and given the way many girls dress at that age, I don't see Britney's behavior as extraordinarily different.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#156,073
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
How do we know if she made that decision on her own? We certainly don't know it about those kids either. Also, Britney Spears was definitely masturbation fodder for older men. How old were these "Child models" when they posed?
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#156,079
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
They were just little girls, preteen.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#156,095
It might be interesting to see a story like this hit the talk show circuit. It might be a way for her to get her story told and get some support if it catches on somewhere. Sob story, lawyers, pretty little white girls talking about whether they were exploited: TV news could eat this up.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#156,099
@156,079 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Were they 12? 13? Miley Cyrus was only fifteen when she was shot in suggestive poses by Anna Leibovitz.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#156,104
@156,099 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Preteen I believe. I remember hearing about Sandra's case at some point or another, she was exploited from a very young age IIRC. Hannah and Britney are quite different cases, teens aren't wired the same as little girls and by that time they're mature enough to understand why/how sex sells.
Bottom line. Exploiting little girls to sell pics exclusively (or almost) to pedophiles is completely fucking wrong on every level.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 39 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,156
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
At what age are females no longer children? What about Dakota Fanning in Hound Dog?
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,164
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
I dunno, probably depends a lot on the kid, but on average I'd say 14 or so. I've never seen Hound Dog.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 49 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,166
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
It was evidently very controversial. Check it out.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,188
@previous (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
Yah, I had already decided to watch it when you mentioned it. ;)
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,190
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
People were freaking out but it's fairly tame. As always Fanning does a great job.
tek joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 37 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,198
Who's to say it wouldn't have escalated into nudity and that? Good on the FBI, another one of the streets.
[^_^] !IOdbnXsKDk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,201
I got to about 2:15 and stooped caring. What was up with the vertical scrolling?
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 32 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,210
@156,198 (tek) > Good on the FBI, another one of the streets.
Photographer?
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,214
According to Wikipedia: "Libman admitted he received images that depict prepubescent children and children engaged in sadistic or masochistic conduct."
!JuMPb0dbaE joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 44 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,249
people just shouldnt do this.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,250
@156,214 (N)
He plead guilty for the plea deal. I'm not sure if "admitted" should be taken to mean "admitted to actually doing" or "was muscled into saying was true".
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,262
@156,214 (N)
He plead guilty because he didn't want his child to be without a mother. I think that is what it means when it says he "plead guilty".
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,311
@156,250 (J) @previous (M)
Hmm... Are you saying you don't believe that, at some point, he downloaded child pornography?
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,313
@previous (N)
I don't know if that was a separate incident, or if it's referencing his guilty plea for the plea deal.
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^][v]#156,710
See, trouble the family made easy money. If they hadn't, there would have been no case. It's the making money part that pisses governments off. Nobody is allowed to make money unless they first pay to get someone elected.