(08-25-2014 03:39 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  And we're all supposed to feel indignant over the violation of his freedom of expression (see the comments).

Until you see the photos.

This guy is sick. And even if you think he's ok, what kind of father would post such pics where actual pervs could get them?

http://petapixel.com/2014/08/22/photogra...responded/

Link NSFW

WTF?

How about not just saying the link was NSFW, but contains child pornography? I wouldn't have clicked the link if I had known that.

Ok, after thinking about this for a while here's my take on this and there are 3 possibilities:

1. The guy is an idiot. He thinks we all love and adore his kid like he does. Like I said, he's an idiot.

2. The guy is an idiot. He thinks those pictures are some form of art, they are not. They're stupid, you can't hang them on a wall, and they have no artful value. Like I said, he's an idiot.

3. Now this is where you have to follow along carefully. Have any of you negotiated with Orientals? I have. If you have a dollar and an Oriental wants it he'll beg and whine incessantly for you to just give him 2 cents and eventually you give it because it's not that much and it shuts him up. Then he'll beg and whine incessantly again for anther two cents and eventually you'll give in again just to shut him up. Repeat this cycle over and over and eventually the Oriental gets the whole dollar.

So with these pictures we have a guy who, unlike most parents who put their kid's pictures on Facebook, we have a guy who takes pictures of what most of us have probably done (although not posed) and are totally innocent. But this guy can't put them on Facebook because they'll be deleted. He puts them on some site and calls them art. But if anyone comes around and busts his balls his defense is that he loves his kid and wants the world to love her and he would never, ever do anything to harm her. So now we've normalized naked 2 year olds on the internet. So another idiot comes along and posts pics of his 3 year old kid and uses the same defense. Then a year after that it's a 6 year old and then a 9 year old and because the frog was slowly boiled we've now normalized child porn on the internet. Doubt me? This is exactly how homosexuality and then gay marriage became normalized - one slow agonizing act of abhorrent behavior at a time until someone said it was normal.

(08-25-2014 03:57 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 03:46 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 03:42 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  He's a pervert. No one takes pictures of their children in those ways.

You think so? He really doesn't need to take photos when he can see the girl naked any time he wants. I have pictures of me sitting in the kitchen sink totally naked getting a bath when I was about 1 year old. Porn? Nah. Would I post them on the internet? No.

The pervs of the world have ruined the innocence of childhood.

Exactly how you put it. It belongs in the family photo album, no where else.

I hope we don't get into trouble for watching that.

Seconded.. I have pics of my kids in the tub on the potty and other times why they are two annd refused to stay clothed. No way I put them on the web but ten years later there is a awwwww factor...

That being said, a couple of those pics are pretty borderline.

Poor taste? Yes. Child porno? Probably not. "Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor..." "A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive."

Still an idiotic thing to do but at that age I can see how he might think of the cuteness factor instead of a porn angle. Now had the child been older, definite no no.

(08-25-2014 07:39 PM)blah Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 03:39 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  And we're all supposed to feel indignant over the violation of his freedom of expression (see the comments).

Until you see the photos.

This guy is sick. And even if you think he's ok, what kind of father would post such pics where actual pervs could get them?

http://petapixel.com/2014/08/22/photogra...responded/

Link NSFW

WTF?

How about not just saying the link was NSFW, but contains child pornography? I wouldn't have clicked the link if I had known that.

Sorry. Although the content of the post made the subject pretty clear IMO.

(08-25-2014 06:17 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  I am not going to click on the pics. The posts here explain it enough.

Good choice.

(08-25-2014 06:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  The pics aren't that bad, they're no worse than pictures we probably have of us in youth or our kids when they were young.

I say that's crazy. Not every pic is "that bad" but more than one is very disturbing, and certainly far worse than any pics I took of my kids.

(08-26-2014 07:16 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Poor taste? Yes. Child porno? Probably not. "Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor..." "A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive."

Still an idiotic thing to do but at that age I can see how he might think of the cuteness factor instead of a porn angle. Now had the child been older, definite no no.

Sufficiently sexually explicit, would be in the eye of the beholder.

(08-26-2014 07:32 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 06:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  The pics aren't that bad, they're no worse than pictures we probably have of us in youth or our kids when they were young.

I say that's crazy. Not every pic is "that bad" but more than one is very disturbing, and certainly far worse than any pics I took of my kids.

Tasteless? Sure. But do you think the guy is testing the waters, sticking just one toe in to see what happens? I think it's possibe.