• SomethingAwful starts campaign to label Reddit as a child pornography hub. Urging users to contact c
    544 replies, posted
[QUOTE=AngryChairR;34672386]That's not how it's defined.[/QUOTE] Oh really then why is [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer"]this [/URL]okay
[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;34672469] I think he was referring to Zeke128[/QUOTE] Ah the original
[QUOTE=Rubs10;34672491]So is it unethical to take pictures of little kids at nude beaches/cultures that don't bother with clothes/nudist colonies and jerk off to them?[/QUOTE] it's unethical to jerk off to them because that's fucking gross and horrible, but the pictures themselves don't count as child pornography unless the context is sexual.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34672506]Ah the original[/QUOTE] I can never remember the numbers in your name whenever bitching about your superior liberal mindset
[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;34672469] But in all seriousness, what's the source on this image? [/QUOTE] Well when I reverse image search it with Google or Tineye I get a billion results. But IIRC, it was from deviantart
[QUOTE=AngryChairR;34672492] 1. That the image is pornographic; 2. That the image is grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene character; and 3. That the image focuses solely or principally on a child's genitals or anal region, or portrays any of the following acts:[/QUOTE] important part that you miss because you don't even know what you are talking about. pictures of naked children are not child pornography. it's why a picture of me in the bath when i was 4 years old taken by my mother isn't child pornography. what is child pornography is a picture of a 4 year old being sexually molested or portrayed in a sexual manner.
[QUOTE=thisispain;34672542]it's why a picture of me in the bath when i was 4 years old taken by my mother isn't child pornography.[/QUOTE] If that photo were distributed to non-family members, it would be. Much like pretty much any naked picture of a women can be labelled pornography. Some call it "art" though.
snip
[QUOTE=Rubs10;34672568]Since when was gross and horrible also unethical?[/QUOTE] Since when was it ethical? [editline]13th February 2012[/editline] Your point is unfounded. [editline].[/editline] yes yes, snip your post. You know you've lost.
This thread is basically the definition of a shitstorm. It's everyone vs everyone. On topic, I'm glad they got rid of those subreddits.
[QUOTE=Bawbag;34672561]If that photo were distributed to non-family members, it would be.[/QUOTE] distribution is not what makes normal pornography pornography, why should it make a picture of a child child pornography? [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Human_anatomy.jpg[/img] this is a picture of a male and a female completely naked. you could get sexually aroused by it, but it's not a pornographic picture. it being distributed on wikipedia does not make it pornographic either.
[QUOTE=thisispain;34672542]important part that you miss because you don't even know what you are talking about. pictures of naked children are not child pornography. it's why a picture of me in the bath when i was 4 years old taken by my mother isn't child pornography.[/QUOTE] Yeah I always have pictures of some kid who likes getting wet in the bath and is 4 years old (its me). I never really understood why people are so uptight over some images of children, I mean like not even being allowed to take photos of your own child at the swimming pool (I understand where the crude intention could come from at this point but come on). People act like it's even a crime to own photos of your own kid in the bath. Obviously if you share these photos with some sick person who likes to masturbate over it then obviously the guy is sick in the head not the photographs.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;34672414][img]http://i.imgur.com/ufTHk.jpg[/img] 0.o[/QUOTE] This reminds me of that episode of South Park.
[QUOTE=Bawbag;34672561]If that photo were distributed to non-family members, it would be. Much like pretty much any naked picture of a women can be labelled pornography. Some call it "art" though.[/QUOTE] My girlfriend has seen said naked photos of me in the bath when looking through a baby photo album. Brb breaking up with her because she is a paedophile.
[QUOTE=thisispain;34672593]you could get sexually aroused by it, but it's not a pornographic picture. it being distributed on wikipedia does not make it pornographic either.[/QUOTE] Ok, a picture of kids naked on a beach isn't child pornography. However, the context in which it is used it is inappropriate, disgusting, a breach of privacy and to top it off, may have serious consequences for those children later in their life if their peers find it.
[QUOTE=Bawbag;34672439]don't worry thisispain your condition is normal you just need to seek help so as you can be prevented from being harm to children.[/QUOTE] Man calling people pedophiles really makes you look smart.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;34672528]I can never remember the numbers in your name whenever bitching about your superior liberal mindset[/QUOTE] This post is what makes me ashamed to be a self-proclaimed conservative on Facepunch.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;34672632]Man calling people pedophiles really makes you look smart.[/QUOTE] yeah, that's the only reason I'm up at 2AM when I have university at 9. calling everyone paedophiles; getting A's.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;34672414][img]http://i.imgur.com/ufTHk.jpg[/img] 0.o[/QUOTE] [b][i]What the fuck[/i][/b]
[QUOTE=Bawbag;34672631]Ok, a picture of kids naked on a beach isn't child pornography. However, the context in which it is used it is inappropriate, disgusting, a breach of privacy and to top it off, may have serious consequences for those children later in their life if their peers find it.[/QUOTE] k but it's not child pornography ergo saying Rubs10 is for child pornography is stupid. context of usage is completely irrelevant, just because i'm using a page 3 poster as wallpaper doesn't mean that it's not pornography. [editline]12th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bawbag;34672640]yeah, that's the only reason I'm up at 2AM when I have university at 9. calling everyone paedophiles; getting A's.[/QUOTE] you're not going to get anywhere by calling people paedophiles and making stupid statements unless you were looking for a job as a Tory party member.
[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;34672637]This post is what makes me ashamed to be a self-proclaimed conservative on Facepunch.[/QUOTE] I am rather conservative too but I just make a joke of myself constantly
[QUOTE=thisispain;34672650]you're not going to get anywhere by calling people paedophiles and making stupid statements unless you were looking for a job as a Tory party member.[/QUOTE] Naturally.. I wasn't being serious. Maxing straight A's in CS despite calling people paedophiles. But, no need to trash the conservatives. As much as I want away from their party, immediately linking "stupid statements" to them is simply bigoted.
[QUOTE=Bawbag;34672695]Naturally.. I wasn't being serious. Maxing straight A's in CS despite calling people paedophiles.[/QUOTE] Maxing straight A's in CS despite wasting everyone's time
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34671841]because reddit is a ~free speech zone~ ron paul 2012 not joking either, the argument against going after pedophilia on reddit is that [b]IT'S CENSORSHIP AND THAT'S WORSE THAN CHILDREN SUFFERING[/b][/QUOTE] Strange that they tried to copyright their own rage comics so people wouldn't use them but hate all other forms of copyright/"anti-free speech".
[QUOTE=thisispain;34672593]distribution is not what makes normal pornography pornography, why should it make a picture of a child child pornography? [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Human_anatomy.jpg[/img] this is a picture of a male and a female completely naked. you could get sexually aroused by it, but it's not a pornographic picture. it being distributed on wikipedia does not make it pornographic either.[/QUOTE] What is up with that dudes penis?
[QUOTE=Bawbag;34672695]Naturally.. I wasn't being serious. Maxing straight A's in CS despite calling people paedophiles. But, no need to trash the conservatives. As much as I want away from their party, immediately linking "stupid statements" to them is simply bigoted.[/QUOTE] [B]'[/B]Straight A's in University[B]'[/B] [B]>11 posts per day[/B]
Good start, but I can think of a few lesser-known subreddits that really should've been banhammered along with the others perhaps we should start reporting such things to the admins and see if they keep it up
I remember the first time we got /r/jailbait taken down and mentioned on CNN, it is is for shutting down reddit I am all for it
[QUOTE=Crash15;34671849][release]At reddit we care deeply about not imposing ours or anyone elses’ opinions on how people use the reddit platform. We are adamant about not limiting the ability to use the reddit platform even when we do not ourselves agree with or condone a specific use. We have very few rules here on reddit; no spamming, no cheating, no personal info, nothing illegal, and no interfering the site's functions. [B]Today we are adding another rule: No suggestive or sexual content featuring minors.[/B] In the past, we have always dealt with content that might be child pornography along strict legal lines. We follow legal guidelines and reporting procedures outlined by [1] [url=http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?PageId=1504]NCMEC[/url]. We have taken all reports of illegal content seriously, and when warranted we made reports directly to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, who works directly with the FBI. When a situation is reported to us where a child might be abused or in danger, we make that report. Beyond these clear cut cases, there is a huge area of legally grey content, and our previous policy to deal with it on a case by case basis has become unsustainable. We have changed our policy because interpreting the vague and debated legal guidelines on a case by case basis has become a massive distraction and risks reddit being pulled in to legal quagmire. As of today, we have banned all subreddits that focus on sexualization of children. Our goal is to be fair and consistent, so if you find a subreddit we may have missed, please message the admins. If you find specific content that meets this definition please message the moderators of the subreddit, and the admins. We understand that this might make some of you worried about the slippery slope from banning one specific type of content to banning other types of content. We're concerned about that too, and do not make this policy change lightly or without careful deliberation. We will tirelessly defend the right to freely share information on reddit in any way we can, even if it is offensive or discusses something that may be illegal. However, child pornography is a toxic and unique case for Internet communities, and we're protecting reddit's ability to operate by removing this threat. We remain committed to protecting reddit as an open platform. [/release] [url]http://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/pmj7f/a_necessary_change_in_policy/[/url][/QUOTE] what the fuck? since when was "sexual content featuring minors" not illegal?
[QUOTE=OhHello;34672646][b][i]What the fuck[/i][/b][/QUOTE] It takes a lot of balls to do something like that and because he did, I respect him. Is it wrong that hes a complete pedo? Yes. But my god, at least he has morals.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.