The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Someone i met on a chat forums 2 years ago has started talking to me recently. He told me he was moving to LA and suff like that. Then he told me that he also owns a porn site and gave me a link.
The site has 2 parts, nudity and then porn. On the nudity site there are two girls standing naked, i'm not sure how old they are but they must be between 8-12. I mentioned this to him and he says it's not illegal since it's just nudity and not porn. However i'm not so sure, i feel this is worong. The photo just looks like a family photo of two sisters on a beach, standing naked, there is nothing pornographic about it, but since there are so many paedophiles about, this photo can't be right.
Would you be happy for your daughter of this age to have a naked photo put on a nudity/porn website? I'm sure i wouldn't like this.
He also said some guy tried to sue him, and his lawyer said that the photo was fine. What are your opinions on this? Am i over reacting or is this totally innapproperiate?
I'm not going to post the link, but a lot of you have my msn address if you wanted the link that way, to see what i mean.
The site has 2 parts, nudity and then porn. On the nudity site there are two girls standing naked, i'm not sure how old they are but they must be between 8-12. I mentioned this to him and he says it's not illegal since it's just nudity and not porn. However i'm not so sure, i feel this is worong. The photo just looks like a family photo of two sisters on a beach, standing naked, there is nothing pornographic about it, but since there are so many paedophiles about, this photo can't be right.
Would you be happy for your daughter of this age to have a naked photo put on a nudity/porn website? I'm sure i wouldn't like this.
He also said some guy tried to sue him, and his lawyer said that the photo was fine. What are your opinions on this? Am i over reacting or is this totally innapproperiate?
I'm not going to post the link, but a lot of you have my msn address if you wanted the link that way, to see what i mean.
Page:
It's not kiddy porn, and it's legal. It's just "nudism", I believe.
Probly been said but its "nudism" therefore its fine.
Sadly.
Sadly.
what wrote:
> It's darling we're talking about here, remember.
> It's unlike that'd dawn on her.
She's so wasted I doubt anything'll dawn on her.
Time to fill her drip back up methinks ... she's starting to string letters together.
> It's darling we're talking about here, remember.
> It's unlike that'd dawn on her.
She's so wasted I doubt anything'll dawn on her.
Time to fill her drip back up methinks ... she's starting to string letters together.
The guy who owns that site is sick!
At what point does nudism become porn?
No matter, it's probably hosted in Kazakhstan or somewhere like that.
No matter, it's probably hosted in Kazakhstan or somewhere like that.
Lawrence wrote:
> since there are so many paedophiles about
The Daily Mail Strikes Back, in shops now priced just £IMMIGRANT.PAEDOPHILE!!!!1
> since there are so many paedophiles about
The Daily Mail Strikes Back, in shops now priced just £IMMIGRANT.PAEDOPHILE!!!!1
Blank wrote:
> Lawrence wrote:
> since there are so many paedophiles about
>
>
> The Daily Mail Strikes Back, in shops now priced just
> £IMMIGRANT.PAEDOPHILE!!!!1
How does one confuse the Daily Mail? Tell them that the immigrant is the natural predator of the paedophile.
> Lawrence wrote:
> since there are so many paedophiles about
>
>
> The Daily Mail Strikes Back, in shops now priced just
> £IMMIGRANT.PAEDOPHILE!!!!1
How does one confuse the Daily Mail? Tell them that the immigrant is the natural predator of the paedophile.
Light wrote:
> How does one confuse the Daily Mail? Tell them that the immigrant is
> the natural predator of the paedophile.
Paedophile hunting: the new fox hunting. If we ban paedophile hunting, all the immigrants will have to be slaughtered...
> How does one confuse the Daily Mail? Tell them that the immigrant is
> the natural predator of the paedophile.
Paedophile hunting: the new fox hunting. If we ban paedophile hunting, all the immigrants will have to be slaughtered...
Lawrence, I think your dead right... Any pics of children under 18 with no clothes on I would consider as Child Porn... Lawyers always bloody lie to suit their circumstance, so I would not trust a lawyer ever.
The Confederate wrote:
> Lawrence, I think your dead right... Any pics of children under 18
> with no clothes on I would consider as Child Porn... Lawyers always
> bloody lie to suit their circumstance, so I would not trust a lawyer
> ever.
So by that rule, my parents with their piccy of me and my brother at two both naked in a paddling pool, that they love to show the relavives, are in fact filthyChildPornPeddlingPeados.
And no, we're not doing anything else apart from sitting in the pool before some SR smartarse posts "but what were you doing with your brother? Nudge-nudge wink wink". Sometimes it's just too predictable.
> Lawrence, I think your dead right... Any pics of children under 18
> with no clothes on I would consider as Child Porn... Lawyers always
> bloody lie to suit their circumstance, so I would not trust a lawyer
> ever.
So by that rule, my parents with their piccy of me and my brother at two both naked in a paddling pool, that they love to show the relavives, are in fact filthyChildPornPeddlingPeados.
And no, we're not doing anything else apart from sitting in the pool before some SR smartarse posts "but what were you doing with your brother? Nudge-nudge wink wink". Sometimes it's just too predictable.
Page: