Freedom

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeslek said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
Click to expand...

God damn I missed my chance!

Obviously Jizlick this is a weak attempt to push my buttons confirming yet once again that your word is useless.

For anyone confused about the "kiddie porn", it was a political cartoon of an Iraqi child taking a leak on a US soldiers head. Linked from this "kiddie porn" site HERE .
 
Why don't you two just get on MSN or ICQ with each other? You can insult or bitch all you want there.
 
ok, political humor photo.

PuterTutor said:
Why don't you two just get on MSN or ICQ with each other? You can insult or bitch all you want there.
Click to expand...

Why don't you address that at the person who started it.
 
flavio said:
Did you interpret that to be directed at Jiz?

I suppose that would explain your mistake.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. I interpreted that as the beginning of the hostility. Was the picture innapropriate? Yes, in some peoples eyes. Was it child porn? I doubt it, and I doubt that that picture alone is going to get anyone in trouble. If you've got 200 more, then it might, but not that alone, so yes, Jeslek is making a big fit over nothing. You on the other hand are just making it worse. Whether or not it violated the AUP was up to OSLI, he made the call. The least you could do is accept it, and go on.
 
The pic was removed, period. Can't you guys give it a rest?

and Jeslek, this site is ruled by the laws of the US not by the laws of Canada.
 
Luis G said:
and Jeslek, this site is ruled by the laws of the US not by the laws of Canada
Click to expand...
Virtually the same thing. Would you like a citation? From what I remember in political science class, it is title 18 section 2256 or something.
 
Cite your citations, it doesn't matter. Show me one case where a person was brought up on charges because of one picture in their temp internet files. Then we'll talk about how wrong it is. Now, unless you've got a shitload of other child porn pics, then just

:stfu:
 
Jeslek, if Gonz had posted it, or OSLI, I really doubt you would have said a word. You only said it to get Flav in trouble, we call those kind of people tattletales. Did it really bother you that much? You would have had to magnify it a few times to even see anything. Or did you?
 
complaint noted and changes made.

inability for thread to negotiate a path back to topic noted.

locked
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top