Re: H&A encouraging child ****ography

Big LN wrote:

> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:455d95ef$0$11968$afc38c87@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>>Beautiful ****n wrote:
>>
>>
>>>a segment in tonight's episode of H&A had the old "girls wind up
tricking 
>>>the boys into taking their clothes off" plotline - it's been used
before 
>>>(most notably in Neighbours about 15 years ago - that's how old it is).
>>>
>>>Except tonight H&A writers and/or director decided to get one of the 
>>>female characters to pull out her digital camera just as the boys were 
>>>about to do the full monty.
>>>
>>>don't H&A producers realise that taking a **** photo of someone under
18 
>>>(in the context of pleasure) constitutes child ****ography?
>>
>>It's not the context in which the photograph is taken that makes it
child 
>>****ography, it's the manner in which the child (being someone under 16)

>>is depicted. Since they haven't shown (I assume) the pictures in
question, 
>>it's impossible to conclude that they would constitute child
****ography. 
>>Accordingly it cannot be inferred that H&A are encouraging it.
>>
>>As an aside, the presence of ****ity is neither sufficient, nor
necessary, 
>>for a picture of a child to constitute child ****ography.
>>
>>Sylvia.
>>
>>
>>>why are they encouraging their viewers to do such a thing?
>>>
>>>what is this world coming to when H&A is encouraging child ****!
>>>
>>>(we already know they encourage young women to have *** with 2
different 
>>>men and not know who the father of their child is)
> 
> 
> Both characters are over 16. 

child ****ography is ***ually explicit material containing images of 
people under 18 - not 16 (which is the age of consent in most australia 
states).



Rick is over 18.
> 
> 'Onya 
> 
>