|
website with young girls in sexual pictures
Hi, I have recently come across this website that basically has a bunch of young girls (all 17 or under) in pictures in their underwear or short shorts or pictures showing off their butts. None nude but some are just in bras and underwear. I was wondering is this website legal? I'm guessing since the young girls aren't fully nude its not considered child pornography? Could someone please help me understand if this is legal to be on the internet/why it is allowed?
[ ]
Want to answer more questions in the Miscellaneous category?
Maybe give some free advice about: Random Weirdos?
Pictures of clothed (even skimpy clothed) girls under 18 do not constitute illegal child pornography and have every right to be on the internet. Most of them were probably posted on facebook or some similar social media site in the first place and were posed and shot with their knowledge and permission. If a seventeen year-old girl wants to post some pics of herself looking fashionable and sexy in her 'short shorts' that's perfectly legal. Good thing too, I reckon. I hope we're not so paranoid/mixed-up that we want to prevent girls wanting to be girls. It's exactly what they wear out and about, on the beach and so on. We're not about to have a short shorts police and bikini squad rounding them up and confiscating their selfies!! Porn is explicit pictures of the models displaying their genitalia, and/or indulging in sexual acts. Naturally, this is NOT OK for minors. Professional photographers (or more precisely publishers/the studio in most cases) need to keep documented Model Release Forms, proving that the models were in full consent and 18 years of age or over when the pictures were obtained if they are pornographic. The records can be checked, and are. Posing/dressing the model to look younger (typical young teen outfits, even school uniforms) is not illegal. If you come across pictures of what are CLEARLY underage persons (very young children, even) in sexually explicit poses you should report it. It's a pretty vile business. Someone's been exploited for the pictures to even exist. Porn studios and photographers (and the admirers of their work among the public at large, and there are plenty) don't like child porn either. An adult model posing/acting as a teen, cheerleader, college girl etc? That's fine. Even if it's sexually explicit. Girl of seventeen posting a snap of herself in her 'sexy shorts'? Nothing to worry about here either really, is there? Sexually explicit photos and videos of minors? Bad news. Banned from the mainstream, and righly so.
ps. Appreciate that different contries have different ages of sexual consent. It's 16 in the UK where I live for instance. This makes no difference to anything in our question. You cannot legally pose for (as the model) or procure (as the publisher/studio/photographer)still or moving sexually explicit images of anyone under 18. Anywhere. Under any circumstances. It's a sensible rule, I think? If the host site is in a country where the age of consent is 16, it's still illegal.
]
And now that you've seen this site, my advice is to best avoid it so you don't get used to seeing so many young girls showing off cus the next step is sites in which these under 17 girls are doing the sex cam thing to earn money or for the fun. I'm a female and was shocked to have a pop up window of such a site come on my computer screen.
Dwelling on it is going to be too tempting and you could find yourself involved in a truly child-pornographic site.
]
What you are describing it's not porn, and it is very likely legal.
In the states, pornographic images need to either show someone engaged in sexual act, or show their sexual organs.
The pictures you are describing may well be immoral, or in poor taste. It's also possible these young people are having their privacy invaded, or having these photos taken under duress. Those two things would be crimes, but the images themselves are not child pornography, because they are not porn.
There are lots, and lots, of things online that are not allowed. Something being wrong, or even illegal, doesn't mean it wont be online. Unfortunately, law enforcement doesn't have that much control, and they tend to focus on sexual images of prepubescent children, rather than teens, because those prepubescent children are in far greater danger when they are used to create phonographic images. Frankly, many of the images you are describing were probably taken with the consent of the young people involved.
]
I'm not a lawyer or am I an expert on laws concerning pornography. I would say the reason it is legal to be on the Web is the same reason it is legal for the newspapers to print pictures of models wearing just under garments.
Many of the models used by ad agencies for bra and panty advertising range in age from 16 to about 19. These girls have the physical dimensions the manufacturers are looking for and appeal to the market they are targeting. Because they are fully clothed, meaning their breast and vaginas are covered, it is not pornography child or otherwise; I would believe.
There was a time not so long ago that newspapers would not run this type of ad. It was not that it was considered pornography but it was considered in bad taste and not to community standards.
Now if you go to Europe or other countries you would be surprised what you might see. There standards concerning nudity are much different than ours. Although not when it comes to child pornography that is a worldwide concern.
I hope this answers your question.
]
More Questions: |