Freedom

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
po030424.gif
 
But it is clearly violating the AUP. If cops came around and inspected my computer they would see a photo of a naked kid on my computer and I could be charged with possession.
 
More and more curious by the day...Why did flavio post kiddie porn? In another thread, he completely avoids the crime of pedophilia that I mentioned...
 
he didn't Gato, it was a cute piccy of a little boy going wee which was unfortunately taken too seriously, forcing it to be edited on a technicality.
 
Leslie said:
he didn't Gato, it was a cute piccy of a little boy going wee which was unfortunately taken too seriously, forcing it to be edited on a technicality.
I'm sorry, I'm going to disagree with you there. In the case of R. vs Sharpe, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a picture like that, which you do not own, is indeed classified as child pornography and is not subject to section 2(b) of the Charter. Had they inspected my computer, they could have charged me with possession and if convicted it would make someone a childmolestor and sexual offender. I have no idea why flavio would resort to posting pictures of naked children on this message board. :mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top