You don't want your kids' videos posted on kiddie porn sites? Then stop having sexy kids.

Citrate1007: I'm still waiting for the pedo patrol to start banning Shakespeare becaue Juliet was only 13.

Already got ya covered: Reaction to Zefferelli's version. Bonus: bare-ly legal man-boy ass.

nekom: SnarfVader: FTFA: "PORNAGRAPHIC"

This passes for journalism?

Depends on how you define pornography. It was never the intent of the person who made the video for it to be in any way pornographic, but if some people view it as such, well maybe it is.

Nabb1: This is precisely why I don't put videos of my kids on the Internet.

Yeah, I wouldn't put any video of my daughter out there. Way too many creepy farks in the world. Lucky for me, most of my youtube videos are of trains. If someone wants to fap to that, they can knock themselves out.

Dual diesel, one tunnel.

Hickory-smoked: If it exists, somebody gets a boner over it.

weapon13: TFA "From then, I called the FBI and they couldn't do anything about it because they weren't his videos. They were other people's videos that he had collected"

Huh?! So why is it that when a pedo downloads and views CP that he/she didn't make themselves (after all, they're only collecting other people's video), they get the book thrown at them?

The mind boggles.

My guess is that the video doesn't fit any legal definition of child pornography. Now, it may be pornographic in the mind of the weirdo who made that channel, but you can't criminalize a state of mind.

That being said, I'm pretty sure that with only a few exceptions, videos containing nudity violate YouTube's terms of service, whether they're pornographic or not.

nekom: Depends on how you define pornography.

At this age range, most likely Pampers.

StaleCoffee: Avery614: The question I had was; What kind of asshat, functionally retarded, poo flinging parent puts nude videos of their children on line????

Everything else aside, the kid in this video wasn't nude.


I understand that.

FTA-She said 50 hits rapidly turned into 3,000. That caught the eye of a YouTube viewer in Sweden who emailed Clark to let her know that her video was on a private YouTube channel that listed videos of nude children.

"I went to look. I was totally shocked," Clark said. "From then, I called the FBI and they couldn't do anything about it because they weren't his videos.

I was taking issue with the all the asshats that post them which allows shiatheads like this guy to find and post them somewhere else.

Oh_Enough_Already: Translation:

Woman too stupid to make her video private sustains butthurt.

weapon13: TFA "From then, I called the FBI and they couldn't do anything about it because they weren't his videos. They were other people's videos that he had collected"

Huh?! So why is it that when a pedo downloads and views CP that he/she didn't make themselves (after all, they're only collecting other people's video), they get the book thrown at them?

The mind boggles.

She's not explaining it right, because if she understood that non-porn video doesn't magically become porn when a pervert watches it, she'd understand why the FBI doesn't see a case here.

nekom: SnarfVader: FTFA: "PORNAGRAPHIC"

This passes for journalism?

Depends on how you define pornography. It was never the intent of the person who made the video for it to be in any way pornographic, but if some people view it as such, well maybe it is.

Nabb1: This is precisely why I don't put videos of my kids on the Internet.

Yeah, I wouldn't put any video of my daughter out there. Way too many creepy farks in the world. Lucky for me, most of my youtube videos are of trains. If someone wants to fap to that, they can knock themselves out.

Reminds me of the godawful video we had to watch in Health:

"Whenever I see a train go into a tunnel, I get an erection"

I was convinced that video was some kind of weird porn itself - it was about a sexually frustrated male teenager who went to the zoo to find answers, only to befriend a kind and knowledgeable young male janitor to which he confided things like the train statement and "I have to secretly wash my sheets after having strange dreams."

Hey, are any of you into latex?

cgraves67: weave: Problem? Slap some ads on it, get payed [sic].

I may have this wrong, but don't the ad programs detect cookies on your computer and display ads catering to your interests. If pedophiles are viewing your video, your video would be advertising sick pedo websites/products to them. Your kid is effectively a spokesmodel for those sites/products.

What's considered a pedo product? Sugar and lube?

nekom: . Lucky for me, most of my youtube videos are of trains. If someone wants to fap to that, they can knock themselves out.

Gotta link?

/rule 34 and all. . .

thisisyourbrainonFark: Damnit, Crabs_Can_Polevault. (tiny fist shaking)

Sorry. But hey, I still consider myself a n00b here. Fist-shaking is a sign I'm doing something right.

So... alright. Watching videos of naked kids on Youtube is okay. The lady didn't have a problem with that. But then somebody was watching the video of the naked kid and she called the FBI? Am I missing something here?

kim jong-un: nekom: SnarfVader: FTFA: "PORNAGRAPHIC"

This passes for journalism?

Depends on how you define pornography. It was never the intent of the person who made the video for it to be in any way pornographic, but if some people view it as such, well maybe it is.

Nabb1: This is precisely why I don't put videos of my kids on the Internet.

Yeah, I wouldn't put any video of my daughter out there. Way too many creepy farks in the world. Lucky for me, most of my youtube videos are of trains. If someone wants to fap to that, they can knock themselves out.

Dual diesel, one tunnel.

Shouldn't it have been spelled 'pr0nagraphic'?
;)

Fano: Weirdos jack it to everything. Why do with have to adjust to them?

Especially in San Diego.

Optimal_Illusion: Fano: Weirdos jack it to everything. Why do with have to adjust to them?

Especially in San Diego.

What's wrong with sd?

Fano: Why do with have to adjust to them?

They need to do way instain mother.

weapon13: TFA "From then, I called the FBI and they couldn't do anything about it because they weren't his videos. They were other people's videos that he had collected"

Huh?! So why is it that when a pedo downloads and views CP that he/she didn't make themselves (after all, they're only collecting other people's video), they get the book thrown at them?

The mind boggles.

What boggles the mind is that this idiocy is even a news article or that the mother even gives a flying damn. A kid in a diaper dancing in the rain isn't child pornography. Even without the diaper, it wouldn't qualify. Now this doesn't mean a pedo wouldn't fantasize and fap to it, but no crime has been committed. Child pornography is the depiction of children engaged in sexual activity or posed sexually provocatively.

As Nabb1 wrote, you never post pictures/vids of your kid on the internet. Never.

Optimal_Illusion: Fano: Weirdos jack it to everything. Why do with have to adjust to them?

Especially in San Diego.

That's because it's German for "whale's vagina."

Morpheses: Optimal_Illusion: Fano: Weirdos jack it to everything. Why do with have to adjust to them?

Especially in San Diego.

That's because it's German for "whale's vagina."

as seen from an old wooden ship.

If it paid enough to put the kid through college, I doubt he would mind. I guess I mean, if that were me, I wouldn't mind.

Avery614: One must be careful what they post on line you never know who is watching.....


Link

That's rip-roaringly funny

That caught the eye of a YouTube viewer in Sweden who emailed Clark to let her know that her video was on a private YouTube channel that listed videos of nude children.

Really submittard? Youtube is a "kiddie porn site"?

Godscrack: Or she could just DELETE THE FRIGGIN VIDEO from youTube, instead of sitting there watching it get more hits.

How dare you use logic and reasoning to take attention away from this mother. She is the only person in the world to ever raise a child and you should feel ashamed for asking her to think.

MusicMakeMyHeadPound:
I was convinced that video was some kind of weird porn itself - it was about a sexually frustrated male teenager who went to the zoo to find answers, only to befriend a kind and knowledgeable young male janitor to which he confided things like the train statement and "I have to secretly wash my sheets after having strange dreams."

Go on....

offmymeds: kim jong-un: nekom: SnarfVader: FTFA: "PORNAGRAPHIC"

This passes for journalism?

.

Shouldn't it have been spelled 'pr0nagraphic'?
;)

And to think, it only took 70-ish posts for someone to get it!

Charlie bit me. And that really squirts.

"From then, I called the FBI and they couldn't do anything about it because they weren't his videos. They were other people's videos that he had collected"


So you're calling the FBI to report yourself, lady?

Nabb1: This is precisely why I don't put videos of my kids on the Internet.

a bunch of this

kids with facebook pages ?? wtf??

/feel old

DammitIForgotMyLogin: Grables'Daughter: Winning: DammitIForgotMyLogin: That caught the eye of a YouTube viewer in Sweden who emailed Clark to let her know that her video was on a private YouTube channel that listed videos of nude children.


Has nobody thought to ask the obvious question?

Fine.

Where's the link for the private youtube channel?

Stop it.

Actually, the question I was thinking of was more along the lines of "if it was a private youtube channel, how did that Swedish guy know about it, unless he's a paedophile himself, and if he is, why is he telling somebody else that their kid's video is on it?"

along the same lines - and i know that there are a lot of techy farkers here:

if it's a "private you tube" channel, is it really private? (my wife will send vids of my kiddo to me at work, but on one of these "private" channels. kind of curious how 'private' it really is.)

thanks

Avery614: StaleCoffee: Avery614: The question I had was; What kind of asshat, functionally retarded, poo flinging parent puts nude videos of their children on line????

Everything else aside, the kid in this video wasn't nude.


I understand that.

FTA-She said 50 hits rapidly turned into 3,000. That caught the eye of a YouTube viewer in Sweden who emailed Clark to let her know that her video was on a private YouTube channel that listed videos of nude children.

"I went to look. I was totally shocked," Clark said. "From then, I called the FBI and they couldn't do anything about it because they weren't his videos.

I was taking issue with the all the asshats that post them which allows shiatheads like this guy to find and post them somewhere else.

Well, fine, make a convincing rebuttal using reason and supporting evidence. I'll just farking agree with you then.

nekom: SnarfVader: FTFA: "PORNAGRAPHIC"

This passes for journalism?

Depends on how you define pornography. It was never the intent of the person who made the video for it to be in any way pornographic, but if some people view it as such, well maybe it is.

Nabb1: This is precisely why I don't put videos of my kids on the Internet.

Yeah, I wouldn't put any video of my daughter out there. Way too many creepy farks in the world. Lucky for me, most of my youtube videos are of trains. If someone wants to fap to that, they can knock themselves out.

Link, please.

Nabb1: This is precisely why I don't put videos of my kids on the Internet.

Because people you'll never interact with think things you don't like while looking at your videos?

I mean, it's your prerogative to post or not post whatever you want, but I'm failing to see how you or your children are harmed by such things, and living in fear of people you'll never meet seems an unnecessary precaution.

/ The pedo-terrorists have won

maelstrom0370: offmymeds: kim jong-un: nekom: SnarfVader: FTFA: "PORNAGRAPHIC"

This passes for journalism?

.

Shouldn't it have been spelled 'pr0nagraphic'?
;)

And to think, it only took 70-ish posts for someone to get it!

I'd have thought it would have been pretty much self-evident. Guess not. Silly me.

It's the internet.

Somewhere, someone is fapping to it.

If you don't want someone to fap to your kids, don't post them online (unless you take appropriate security measures and even then...)

/somewhere, someone is even fapping to this post.

This is why photographers are best served having a home page they view site logs from, if this genuinely bothers you. I guess then you can see what referral pages or search hits brought them there. Granted, there's not much you can do about it, but at least you know what various fetish communities have decided to co-opt images, assuming they just don't take them wholesale and post it themselves.

/does cosplay photography, and has had every flavor of perv group linked to page at some point.
// the "long hair fetish" group was one of the less standard ones.
///for hotlinkers it was "please don't steal bandwidth - next time it's tubgirl"
////for hotlinkers making fun of the people in the pictures, it was tubgirl

Citrate1007: I'm still waiting for the pedo patrol to start banning Shakespeare becaue Juliet was only 13.

Oh man would that be fun to bring to a school board meeting...

"I protest including Romeo and Juliet in the English program due to it's promotion of sexualizing 13yr old girls and 14yr old boys."

/maximum trolling indeed...

fluffy2097: I have totally legitimate photos on my flicker page. Nothing pornographic at all. During an event I went to, I got to take pictures of some CA Sherrifs standing next to a 1930's police car.



This photo is my most popular Flickr photo I've ever taken. Not even my FUUUUUUU meme gains more hits. Several people Favorited the image. So I began investigating why these people would favorite such a random photo.

Turns out they're all gay men with Bears in uniform fetishes (bears being large hairy gay men, not the bears Steven Colbert is afraid of).

I'm not sure if I should be proud gay men are jerking off to that photo or ashamed.

I took pictures of the rebuilt Zwinger in Dresden, Germany, which includes an impressive array of satyr statues around the foundation of the castle-like building. I put them up on Flickr as part of my trip.

In retrospect, it shouldn't be terribly surprising that there's a significant interest in petrified muscular goatmen without clothing.

/hooray, I'm an international pornographer

scottydoesntknow: Citrate1007: I'm still waiting for the pedo patrol to start banning Shakespeare becaue Juliet was only 13.

Relevant:

[slaymyboredom.files.wordpress.com image 459x229]

My bad.

I recall hearing that Romeo was 14 or so.

DammitIForgotMyLogin: That caught the eye of a YouTube viewer in Sweden who emailed Clark to let her know that her video was on a private YouTube channel that listed videos of nude children.


Has nobody thought to ask the obvious question?

I have thought to ask, and came here to see if the answer was posted. This is Fark, isn't it?