Image
Comments
| Anonymous #1465621 2 weeks ago |
hory shet, I know what you mean now.... someone report the image next to this one ASAP!!! |
| Robomorons #1465622 2 weeks ago |
Already reported, Prof. |
| Theopticals #1465624 2 weeks ago |
Mods? Hah.
I agree though. |
| Nebbie #1465629 2 weeks ago |
How do you go beyond banning? Do you...send them a harsh letter? We can't even do that since it was an anon likely using a proxy.
Sure, you can report the IP to the police, but it's probably just a proxy and a waste of their time. |
| Anonymous #1465632 2 weeks ago |
thank you, it gone |
| filflat #1465643 2 weeks ago |
Gary Glitter has come to ponibooru |
| Takuto_Shindou #1465644 2 weeks ago |
What's CP again? |
| filflat #1465649 2 weeks ago |
^ child porn |
| Nebbie #1465652 2 weeks ago |
@anon632 No it's not.
WARNING:Contains nude little girl standing suggestively! >>194156 |
| scorch_3do #1465653 2 weeks ago |
It wasn't porn, I think I've seen that before. I think it was "art" and the girl was just naked. But that image still had no reason to be here and I'm glad its gone |
| Bolan #1465656 2 weeks ago |
^ Nobody wants to look, thank you. |
| ProfessorOfHoers #1465659 2 weeks ago |
Apparently it's not gone and I'm pretty sure photos of naked little girls are illegal and granted, we might be a strange lot here, but I think we could all agree that has no place here and needs to be removed before people see it and it needs to be reported by the mods to the authorities. |
| Takuto_Shindou #1465661 2 weeks ago |
SHIT child porn?What is going on with this world? |
| LightsaberGuy #1465670 2 weeks ago |
^If you're one of those fucks who thinks that's art, you are a tool. |
| Nebbie #1465674 2 weeks ago |
@ProffesorOfHoers
There is a definition actually. Relevant part bolded. "Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography1 is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where the production of the visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or the visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or the visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Federal law (18 U.S.C. §1466A) also criminalizes knowingly producing, distributing, receiving, or possessing with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting, that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Sexually explicit conduct is defined under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256) as actual or simulated sexual intercourse (including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex), bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person." Note that intent of the image is important. If what scorch_3do said is true, the image is likely not child pornography. |
| Nebbie #1465679 2 weeks ago |
*lascivious is synonymous with lewd. It basically means intended to be sexual. |
| LightsaberGuy #1465681 2 weeks ago |
Also, the image is not gone. |
| dudemang #1465686 2 weeks ago |
Well, it was only a matter of time.
Doesn't excuse it, though. We need to stop this sort of thing because we could all get in incredible, serious trouble for this. |
| Takuto_Shindou #1465687 2 weeks ago |
@LightsaberGuy Was that directed to me? |
| dudemang #1465692 2 weeks ago |
Nebbie, I remain unconvinced. Even if it technically doesn't fall under that definition, I'd rather err on the side of caution. |
| coyotecrow4 #1465695 2 weeks ago |
I'm going to rip whoever posted this a new one! This is just fucked up!! |
| Nebbie #1465696 2 weeks ago |
@dudemang
We're not getting into trouble. Any reasonable police officer would know that the image is borderline and, more importantly, the site has no intention of keeping it on. |
| dudemang #1465704 2 weeks ago |
Don't care. Don't want to be associated with it. |
| LightsaberGuy #1465706 2 weeks ago |
@Takuto_Shindou
No, sorry. Ponibooru just didn't load quick enough for ^ to work right. My comment was directed towards the other guy. |
| Nebbie #1465716 2 weeks ago |
Well we finally hav some solid info on the image. Yes it is art. It's been controversial before however.
http://www.artknowledgenews.com/2009_10_02_20_35_09_britains_tate_modern_blinks_and_removes_brooke_shields_photo_at_request_of_scotland_yard.html |
| Takuto_Shindou #1465737 2 weeks ago |
@LightsaberGuy No problem,man :) |
| Niggoslav_Krawczyk #1465767 2 weeks ago |
implying this place even HAS mods. |
| Nebbie #1465770 2 weeks ago |
LightsaberGuy@1465670 said: Funny, this image, while still controversial, is certainly legal in the US. The courts even said it was okay to publish after the girl shown complained it embarrassed her as part of a lawsuit. Guess who the real tool is? |
| Nebbie #1465775 2 weeks ago |
@Niggoslav_Krawczk
They usually get around to cleaning up explicit images in comments and lolicon within a week or two. I've heard there's three mods (including Eco himself). |
| PhilSrobeighn #1465786 2 weeks ago |
But seriously, let's not be /b/ |
| LightsaberGuy #1465844 2 weeks ago |
Oh, yeah. I wanted to post this.
 |
| Van_Horsing #1465889 2 weeks ago |
I didn't see the picture in question before I clicked on this thumbnail, so I guess it's been deleted. But what about the picture that I DO see next to this one? The one with the guy sticking his dick in what appears to be some sort of industrial press? Is someone going to post some angry text about that one too, or is it not bad enough spam for you to worry about? |
| LightsaberGuy #1465913 2 weeks ago |
Dafuq are you people talking about?
Unfortunately, it is still NOT deleted. >>194156 |
| Yorec #1465926 2 weeks ago |
@lightsaber
Is it a real life little girl/boy? Or is it lolicon? Because I do not want to click that link if its real life cp. |
| -Lunacy #1465939 2 weeks ago |
Needed more pony. |
| LightsaberGuy #1465941 2 weeks ago |
@Yorec
Yea, it's real..  |
| Yorec #1465948 2 weeks ago |
@Light
Yeah I just saw it on the comment list. |
| Ananonymous #1465950 2 weeks ago |
@Yorec
read the article http://www.artknowledgenews.com/2009_10_02_20_35_09_britains_tate_modern_blinks_and_removes_brooke_shields_photo_at_request_of_scotland_yard.html (same censored photo in there) anyway, yes, that's a real life girl, now 44 yo and if i've read the article right, not very happy about that photo |
| Yorec #1465972 2 weeks ago |
@Ananon
It was Brooke Shields? And her mom gave permission? Wow. |
| Nebbie #1466023 2 weeks ago |
This isn't the only time a photo of a nude little girl didn't get controversial until recently. (See: Virgin Killer and the Wikipedia censorship debacle.)
The '70s were a different place. You could actually take pictures for innocent purposes and not hav swarms of moral guardians coming at you saying you're a terrible person. Nowadays everyone's batshit paranoid about child molesters. There'd be less paranoia about Vampires if they existed. |
| I_Like_Your_Mane #1466789 2 weeks ago |
I agree Nebbie. |
| dudemang #1466879 2 weeks ago |
well
i think we can all agree it's not pony-related |