I posted this in another thread, but wanted to give some insight into why we bar pictures that are freely available on other sites:
Quote:
|
At the time those pictures were taken, he was a minor in the eyes of courts having jurisdiction over LPSG (regardless of what the law in the UK says), and this is covered by 18 USC 2252 and 18 USC 2256 instead. One of the factors that courts have to decide is whether the genitals are shown in a "lascivious" manner; and previous court decisions have taken the picture's context into account -- meaning that a picture of a naked African child in National Geographic might get a pass, while the exact same picture in Hot African Uncut Dicks might not. Similarly, pictures of Daniel Radcliffe naked on stage may safely be posted at British Theatre Review, but put the Large Penis Support Group at risk.
|