OT - Legal question related to SamsNCharge99 avatar

Mudcat · 05-07-09, 01:12 PM

Probably not everywhere in the world but most places relevant to this forum, yes.

flyingillini · 05-07-09, 01:13 PM

How long is SBR going to tolerate this sort of behavior from this kid? He has a sickness and is not getting the proper care he needs. SBR relieve him of his posting abilities on SBR, do the right thing here.

Mudcat · 05-07-09, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Mudcat

Probably not everywhere in the world but most places relevant to this forum, yes.

I suppose that needs to be qualified. Depends how much is showing. If the picture is from the shoulders up and you happen to be naked out of the frame, that wouldn't be a problem.

It would depend on how graphic it is. Same as if it was a picture of a child other than yourself.

Justin7 · 05-07-09, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by InTheHole

So it was removed. A legal question for our scholars...

Would it be illegal to post naked pictures of yourself as a child when you are an adult?

Yes, this is illegal. In fact, displaying images of people that don't even exist - i.e. you create a child image that looks accurate - is illegal.

Don't go there. Don't even go near there.

L2Gunz · 05-07-09, 01:16 PM

sammy is a fukkn fraud...that pic WAS not him as a baby..i've seen that pic on those motivational posters(epic fail)...I will find that pic and prove to everyone on SBR that Sammy is a fake...why lie about something so silly sammy...GROW UP KID!!!!

madmaxx · 05-07-09, 01:17 PM

more disturbing than illegal but sick and twisted nonetheless

RogueScholar · 05-07-09, 01:22 PM

I trust Justin's assessment of the relevant statutes as he's a smart cookie and I'm just a simple farmer. I do think it says that this country is way too uptight for its own good. Some picture of a seated kid's naked butt from behind with his hand in his lap doing who knows what is just humorous. When it's posted by the kid in the photograph as he has reached adulthood, I just can't see how that's illegal. I suppose now you're going to tell me that mooning someone from inside your car is illegal. Unreal...

Boner_18 · 05-07-09, 01:31 PM

There is no way that photo would come close to pornography in any jurisdiction. Absolutely no way hands down. I know this doesn't answer the question asked but there is simply no way that is characterized as pornography in even the most conservative of US jurisdictions.

sickler · 05-07-09, 01:45 PM

Illegal by whose laws? The law of SBR?

Nudity in a non-lascivious manner doesn't constitute pornography.

RogueScholar · 05-07-09, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Boner_18

There is no way that photo would come close to pornography in any jurisdiction. Absolutely no way hands down. I know this doesn't answer the question asked but there is simply no way that is characterized as pornography in even the most conservative of US jurisdictions.

Originally posted by sickler

Illegal by whose laws? The law of SBR?

Nudity in a non-lascivious manner doesn't constitute pornography.

Thank God, some people whose minds aren't in the gutter! This is precisely the point I'm making, there's nothing sexual about the picture except the obviously questionable thoughts entering into the minds of Diogee and the staff responsible in the decision making when they see it. It's a photographic representation of innocence, precisely the opposite of pornography. You guys that are upset about it need to get a life, or at least get out more.

payingthejuice · 05-07-09, 01:55 PM

Its SBR's boards, being able to post here is a privledge. They have every right to remove any picture they want. Whether people agree or disagree.

Bread · 05-07-09, 01:58 PM

RS perhaps it's the fact the the picture is of baby BOY ass.

I kid I kid.

RogueScholar · 05-07-09, 02:00 PM

Sure it's their board, but they profit off the losses of their community members. They have a responsibility to take into account the entire spectrum of opinions represented here and render government such as allows the maximum amount of people to feel serviced by their forum. To do otherwise is to place their own personal mores (such as aren't already put into question but their business model itself) above their bottom line and above the people who actually pay their salaries.

payingthejuice · 05-07-09, 02:07 PM

Yeah, but their is a difference between the ass of and ADULT and a CHILD. Its a fine line, and SBR had to make a choice whether to leave it or get rid of it, they had to pick a side, and obviously went with the safer side, leaving it up would have had far harsher effects in the long run if it was pursued. Taking it down just nipped it in the bud.

diogee · 05-07-09, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by RogueScholar

Thank God, some people whose minds aren't in the gutter! This is precisely the point I'm making, there's nothing sexual about the picture except the obviously questionable thoughts entering into the minds of Diogee and the staff responsible in the decision making when they see it. It's a photographic representation of innocence, precisely the opposite of pornography. You guys that are upset about it need to get a life, or at least get out more.

I didn't report it or anything...just said it was f*cked up/maybe a little disturbing based on the premise of an obviously naked boy sitting on a table. I wasn't offended and really didn't care that he had it up...just simply made a comment on it.