Don't reply to crap like that.
Ignore and report.
GLOBAL REPORT
Admins said weeks ago THAT YOU SHOULD NOT REPLY TO THAT CRAP DIRECTLY.
Users of 8kun.net shall not:
Do anything illegal or anything that adversely affects 8kun.net's legal interests.Any and all illegal content under United States law is prohibited and 8kun.net will cooperate fully with United States law enforcement.The following list is nonexclusive and should not be construed as a license to commit any other illegal activity not specified below:
9924166
Hey faggot
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-legally-makes-it-child-pornography-38082
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.Child pornography under federal law is the disregard for age of consent for sexual activity in a given state. Some states consider age of consent to be younger than 18 years old, but when child pornography is concerned, any depiction of a minor under the age of 18 engaging in sexually explicit conduct is unlawful.
Have fun with the FEDs.
>The United States aren't cleaning up WORLDWIDE
They do.
It's a really stupid idea to paint yourself as a pedo especially atm.
Users of 8kun.net shall not:
Do anything illegal or anything that adversely affects 8kun.net's legal interests.Any and all illegal content under United States law is prohibited and 8kun.net will cooperate fully with United States law enforcement.The following list is nonexclusive and should not be construed as a license to commit any other illegal activity not specified below:
Child pornography and Dost-infringing content.
9924234
Keep digging your own grave.
>Well yes, officer I got all these images of really young children on my harddrive, but I'm not into these at all.
He was sentenced to 15 years on the production count and 10 years on the possession count with the sentences ordered to be served concurrently.
Following the presentation of the Government’s case, Holmes’s attorney moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the images of the victim did not constitute child pornography within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A) because they did not depict a minor engaged in “sexually explicit” conduct.
The trial court denied the motion. Holmes timely appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Eleventh Circuit began its analysis by pointing out that it has previously defined “lascivious exhibition” as one that “excites sexual desires or is salacious.”
Holmes tried to persuade the appeals court that the images he videoed depicted “mere nudity,” making him a “voyeur” and not a child pornographer. He reasoned that since there was no “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” that excited sexual desires or that was salacious, he could not be guilty of either producing or attempting to produce child pornography.”
The appeals court disagreed, following the lead of its sister circuits that “lascivious exhibition” should focus on the intent of the producer, not the actions of the victim. The court said that to find otherwise would require the victim to “exhibit lust, wantonness, sexual coyness, or other inappropriate precocity.”
The court added that “such an interpretation would pervert both the language and the logic of the legislation and case law.”