Would this be considered child porn?

[Archae]

No, no pictures or whatnot.

A guy I know sent me a few pictures and a video of a girl, a porn actress who is 25 years old.

An Asian girl named "Lil Miss Kitty," she looks like she's 10 years old.

I don't know, should porn from her be legal?

[Hawkeye-X]

1. No.

By definition. And proof of age.

[craigmatic]

2. It is illegal for an actress to pretend to be younger than she really is in porns. I think

it's a federal law.

[Recovered Repug]

20. I think you're partly right.

I don't think they can pretend to be under 18. There are some girls who have been 18 for years - I'm told.

Actually I remember reading that in "Animal House", the topless seen with the mayor's daughter was originally cut, or maybe going to be cut, because she played a 14 year old.

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. WTF?

Why in the f*ck are you posting this BS?

[PBS Poll-435]

4. It's Monday. nt

[blondeatlast]

22. We got a li'l visit from RB TexLA this morning, too.

Good times. :eyes:

[Meldread]

5. Yes, if she is above the age of consent.

Legal age is all that matters when it comes to such job qualifications. Otherwise, it is an endorsement of discrimination based upon someones physical appearance.

I say this as someone who also looks younger than their age. Although there are benefits to looking younger than you really are, one problem that I consistently have is that people don't take me as seriously in person. I mostly give credit to my youthful appearance to taking care of myself properly - staying hydrated, abstaining from smoking, drinking, drugs - both legal and illegal, and careful when it comes to exposure to the sun.

Regardless of what line of employment "Lil Miss Kitty" decides to enter, she shouldn't be punished for her looks. Certain jobs require you to be a certain age. You have to be a certain age to be President, serve drinks in bars, act in porn, among a few other things. So long as you meet the age requirement that is all that matters. Outside of that, other individuals will decide what is acceptable for them to view or not. If someone isn't comfortable viewing "Lil Miss Kitty" then I would encourage them not too. Conversely, if someone is seeking child porn and stumbles upon "Lil Miss Kitty" - then I hope they like her. I'd rather them view her than an actual child.

[tridim]

6. Turn yourself in and see what happens.

If she's 18+, it's legal. Period.

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. Probably

if her tricycle is in the vid.

[golddigger]

8. The question should be; Why do you want to watch

a video of a girl who looks like she is ten years old anyway?

[Archae]

13. I don't.

A guy I know told me about her.

[arcane1]

18. Would dating her make one a pedophile?

Young-looking people need love too!

[Sparkly]

9. Not well-versed on this, but I think there have been cases with charges

maybe of "obscenity" or something, when actresses were depicted AS children even if they were over 18.

[kayakjohnny]

10. You'll probably know soon enough.

And if you stop posting, we'll know soon enough.

[MrSlayer]

11. It's not a crime to look 13.

As long as the person involved is over 18 it doesn't matter how young she looks.

[Gman]

12. No.

[Arctic Dave]

14. Winner! Creepiest post of the year award.

[TheCowsCameHome]

16. 11 days to go - enter now, you could still win!

Gaaaaak.:puke:

[Starry Messenger]

23. Seriously. n/t

[Bigmack]

15. You know how posters write "This post is worthless...

without pictures."

Well, let's just not.... OK?

[NavyDem]

17. This might be the answer.

"On April 16, 2002, in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court
declared unconstitutional the federal child pornography law to the extent that it
prohibited material that was produced without the use of an actual child. The case
held, in other words, that pornography created by artists, including “virtual”
(computer-generated) pornography, and pornography produced with adult actors but
with no actors below 18 years of age, are protected by the First Amendment, even if
they appear to portray minors, unless they are obscene."

Excerpted from: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/pdf/CRS.childporn2.pdf

[nemo137]

24. Answer given, thread over, we can all go home.

[MineralMan]

19. Why would you think we'd be interested in this?

It has nothing to do with politics, Democrats, or anything else. Crap like this doesn't belong here, in my opinion.

[PCIntern]

21. Wow...new low here...

IBTL

[ChoppinBroccoli]

25. I Remember Hearing About A Case In Law School.............

............where some Court (not sure if it was the Supreme Court or just some lower court somewhere) ruled that you could be found guilty of viewing child pornography if the person depicted LOOKS under the age of consent. Which raises the obvious question, how could you ever prove how young a person LOOKS? That's why it was so troubling.

It also opens the door to all kinds of horrible things. For example, my wife looks easily 10 years younger than her actual age, and always has. This is a wonderful thing now that we've been married for a number of years and are nearing 40, but if we had been dating when she was in her younger 20s, but LOOKED like she was a teenager, I could have gotten into all kinds of hot water based on that court ruling.

Again, I'm not sure if that ruling still is law in whichever jurisdiction it came from, but it does show you how touchy the law can be when it comes to the spectre of child pornography.

[canetoad]

26. I think it's time

To prosecute everyone who obsesses over the definition of child porn for the thought-crime of being a potential abuser.

[PhillySane]

27. I

and the Supreme Court will have to see those pictures before we can make a decision.

[Cali_Democrat]

28. Nah bro.....go ahead and watch it

You're golden :thumbsup: