they are NOT illegal!! breaking your own rules now???
Sexual activity is not needed in the image to be considered pornography. The images may contain a nude picture of a child that is deemed sexually suggestive and be considered illegal.
I'd argue that the context of them being put on this website, alongside the nature of the posts around them's more than clear and apparent motivations, has more than established that they're being posted with sexuality in mind. Pair that with nudity on the children and it's a liability no-no.
Sexual activity is not needed in the image to be considered pornography. The images may contain a nude picture of a child that is deemed sexually suggestive and be considered illegal.I'd argue that the context of them being put on this website, alongside the nature of the posts around them's more than clear and apparent motivations, has more than established that they're being posted with sexuality in mind. Pair that with nudity on the children and it's a liability no-no.
The intent/context behind posts don't matter. What matters is if the media is sexual or not. Regular nudist photos are legal, regardless of what mental gymnastics you pull.
Sexual activity is not needed in the image to be considered pornography. The images may contain a nude picture of a child that is deemed sexually suggestive and be considered illegal.I'd argue that the context of them being put on this website, alongside the nature of the posts around them's more than clear and apparent motivations, has more than established that they're being posted with sexuality in mind. Pair that with nudity on the children and it's a liability no-no.
The intent/context behind posts don't matter. What matters is if the media is sexual or not. Regular nudist photos are legal, regardless of what mental gymnastics you pull.
You're still too dumb to see, this is about what the rest of the members want to have around, not about your shitty idea of free speech.