Not logged in. · Lost password · Register

All content © NFGworld, unless otherwise noted, except for stuff we stole. Contact the editor-in-chief : baldbutsuave@thissitesdomain, especially if you are an attractive young female willing to do nude photography modelling. All rights reversed. 701

Author name (Administrator) #1
Member since May 2011 · 2485 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members
Show profile · Link to this post
Subject: Child Porn, Real or Imagined (NSFW FFS!)
The other day while traipsing merrily through the internets, I found something interesting.  Someone has created artificial child porn by taking photos of (admittedly young) adults and modifying them to look like children.  The changes are subtle, involving little more than some shading to reduce wrinkles and shadows, some creative adjustments of the outside lines to remove things like hipbones, and finally, enlarging the head just a little to create a smaller-looking body.

Here's the image I found, I have no idea if there are millions more, but this is the only one I've seen:

[Image: /grafx/FakingIt.jpg]

Now, this is really a strange new thing to me, and it raises all kinds of interesting questions. 

Let's start with the legal one: If sexual photos of real children is illegal, and wholly created images (CG, comics, etc) are also illegal (depending on where you live), what about the image of a girl who is provably old enough, but has been modified like the above? 

Is this really the creation of child porn, or is it more like an adult wearing a schoolgirl's uniform and sucking on an oversize lollypop?  I would guess that the letter of the law would say that the existence of this image is illegal, and I bet it becomes a shitload more illegal if you lose or disconnect the original.

Now, the ethical question: Should this alarm anyone?  I'm of the opinion that real children should be kept safe from harm but that virtual ones can be stolen, abused and thrown in the chipper without real world repercussions. 

The naked human body does not scare me as it does some, and a child in a bath would only be porn if the child was in close proximity with an erect penis.  A naked child on a bed might be more suggestive, but in my mind there's a world of difference between suggestion and and outright presentation.

So personally, I do not find this image erotic, and I do not believe that it is objectionable when connected to the original, merely interesting.  I do however believe it's probably illegal, moreso if it were the whole-body shot as it was when I found it. 

Now, question of ownership.  While the creation and enjoyment of these images may be indicative of the kind of person none of us wish to know, this particular image would raise a cautionary flag in my mind (especially if I found it without the original) but it's not necessarily child porn, nor would the owner necessarily be a dangerous person.

Some might get off on it, but I surely don't.  Which brings us full circle: Is this sort of thing inherently dodgy?  Is it illegal?  Should it be? 

Finally, the what if: What if the image was a young girl made to look older?  In this image it's easy to spot the original vs the edit, but in an image pair where the source could not reliably be identified?  How does that change the equation? 

Now, if only plastic surgeons were as effective as the photoshoppers, the period of our youth could be indefinite.
Author name #2
Member since Jul 2009 · 11 posts
Group memberships: Citizens, Denizens, Members
Show profile · Link to this post
well, i dont believe it should be illegal as she is initially said to be a young adult, manipulated to look like a child. One major thing i dont understand about child pornography is how and why do paedophiles get off over the poor young children. Its understandable when it comes to teenagers but, what do these paedo's get pleasure out of??

Many people have pictures of their children naked or in the bath, because these are used as cherished memories and embarrassing 21st birthday shots :P.

I am just confused also, as to why someone would wish to make the said, young adult, look younger. If i was a paedophile, figuratively speaking, i would be more attracted to a teenager with naturally curvacious figures, not young children.

It would be greatly appreciated to have a males view upon this post, to answer my questions.
All evil must be seen, heard and spoken for it to be evil.
Author name (Administrator) #3
Member since May 2011 · 2485 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members
Show profile · Link to this post
I think it's basically a short circuit in a fairly logical element of our construction.  Young women look cleaner and healthier than older ones.  Fewer wrinkles, fewer warts, fewer sagging bits, less hair in places that look better smooth.  No one finds a person whose body resembles a melted candle attractive, right? 

Plus, it wasn't that long ago that 15 was middle age, and when you were doing well to be married by 14.  The fact that we drag out our childhoods for ten or more years than we used to changes our societal mores, but it does not change our biological ones.  Basically, we're hardwired to thing younger is sexier.

Pedophiles, I think, are basically just wired a little too tight in that respect.  Some people think 25 is perfect, some 18, some 14.  It's not much different to how some people are born really tall, or prone to violence.  Sure, it can be a product of environment, but I think there's an argument to be made for a genetic impetus as well.  Some people are just born a little farther off the norm.

I don't mean to excuse such behaviour, of course.  There's gotta be rules about what you DO to children, but it's hard for me to believe there should be rules about what you THINK, or what you do with your artistic talents when real children aren't involved.
Author name (Administrator) #4
Member since May 2011 · 2485 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members
Show profile · Link to this post
I found another 4chan post today that started off with the image in the first post.  OP said it was a legal loophole, someone else said it was still illegal 'cause it looked like child porn, but before source for this statement was found, the thread was 404'd.

There was also another image posted, which I share for your education here:


This is really an interesting thing.  I like to imagine it's blowing minds down at Thought Police HQ.

I can see the argument in favour of criminalizing this sort of thing: if it looks real, how can you not believe it is real?  If you find an archive of these things, how can you not be suspicious of the person who owns it?  In connection with the original I have to believe it has educational merit, but if only the younger-looking image was found...  Well we can't expect cops to believe they're faked first and real second, can we?  They're not so good at thinking as it is...  ;)
This post was edited on 2010-04-29, 10:16 by NFG.
Author name (Administrator) #5
Member since May 2011 · 2485 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members
Show profile · Link to this post
Subject: Man in trouble for creating porn with photoshop
Now this is just weird.  An Ohio lawyer and former state prosecutor, Dean Boland, was called as an expert witness in a child porn case took some non-sexual images of four young girls and photoshopped them to look as if sexual acts were being performed. 

Given that the law prohibited “knowingly” accessing child pornography, Boland argued, it violated the First Amendment on “vagueness and over-breadth grounds” because a defendant could not know whether what he was viewing was an actual or virtual image of a child having sex.

The defendant in the trial was acquitted, but now the expert is being charged by the parents of the girls in the photos.  The court initially dismissed this suit, but it was reinstated recently in appeals.

Boland said in a telephone interview Thursday, “I was hired as an expert witness. This was not like, let’s start a website of this crap.”

The courts are now saying that he broke the law to prove that the law was essentially insane, and now he's going to be charged for doing so.  Their analogy was proving a knife was too short to kill someone by stabbing someone else with it during the trial. 

The very idea that there is any harm in photoshopped child porn is absurd, and these people ought to take a step back and ask themselves if they're really fighting the good fight here or just trying to score some political points.

Author name (Administrator) #6
Member since May 2011 · 2485 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members
Show profile · Link to this post
The Turkish internet police are all over this shit.  I feel safer already.

Sayın Yetkili,

Bilindiği üzere, 04/05/2007 tarihli ve 5651 sayılı  İnternet Ortamında Yapılan Yayınların Düzenlenmesi ve Bu Yayınlar Yoluyla İşlenen Suçlarla Mücadele Edilmesi Hakkında Kanun  23/05/2007 tarihinde yürürlüğe girmiştir.

Başkanlığımızın Bilgi İhbar Merkezine aşağıda yer verilen alan adı/ URL adresi ile ilgili ihbar/ihbarlar gönderilmiştir. Bu e-posta ile şikayete konu İnternet adresi Başkanlıkça detaylı bir inceleme yapılmadan tarafınıza bildirilmektedir. Şikâyete konu içeriğin tarafınızca çıkartılması veya engellenmesi doğrudan talep edilmemektedir.  Bildirilen ihbara konu olan içeriğin öncelikle tarafınızca incelenerek 5651 sayılı Kanundaki sorumluluklarınız kapsamında ÖZDENETİM usulü ile sonuçlandırılması hususunda gereğini rica ederim. 
Bilgi Teknolojileri ve İletişim Kurumu

Telekomünikasyon İletişim Başkanlığı
Not: Başkanlığımızca bildirimlerin yapılabilmesi için iletişim bilgilerinizin ( e-posta, telefon, adres) gönderilmesini rica ederim.

Daha fazla bilgi için, ve İnternet adreslerini ziyaret edebilirsiniz.
İlgili URL:…
İlgili alanadı:
Dear Sir/Madam,
As it is known law no: 5651 relevant to Regulating  broadcasts on the internet and struggling against crimes committed on this platform dated 04/05/2007 came into force in 23/05/2007.

Our presidency's hotline received several reports connected to domain name/URL address written below.  The aim of this e-mail is to predict you before our presidency starts to detailed examination. It is not requested to remove or block directly the content subjected to the reports.

It is respectfully submitted to examine the content subjected to the declared report in scope of your responsibilities in law no: 5651 according to self-regulatory procedures.
P.S:  We kindly ask your contact information in order to notify you by our presidency.
For further information you can also visit and .  

Related URL:…
Related domain:
-------------- Please include the below line in your reply -----------------
[URLID:693523]: [REFID:870670]:

The Google translation is actually easier to read:

As is known, No. 5651, dated 04.05.2007 Regulation of Internet Publications and Combating Crimes Committed by means of Such Publications Law entered into force on 05.23.2007.  Presidency Information Warning Center issued the following domain name / URL address on the notice / notices sent. This e-mail with the subject of the complaint without a detailed examination of the Presidency informed of an Internet address. Is requested by you directly to the offending content removed or blocked. The reported content is subject to notice obligations under the Law of 5651 primarily examined by you with the conclusion regarding the need for self-control procedure, you're welcome. 

Information and Communication Technologies Authority  Telecommunications Communication Presidency    Note: In order to notifications by Office contact information (e-mail, phone, address) if you could send.  For more information, please visit and ​​Internet addresses.
Author name (Administrator) #7
Member since May 2011 · 2485 posts · Location: Brisbane
Group memberships: Administrators, Members
Show profile · Link to this post
Meanwhile, over in Nebraska, a man was sentenced to ten years in jail for sending sexual images to an 11 year old girl with the words "this is what we will do".  Well, I don't know the context, but that sounds pretty damning. 

But the laws they applied were child-porn laws, because he photoshopped the girl's face onto adult bodies.  Certainly there were more appropriate laws available?  This has created a ridiculous precedent, meaning - probably - that the images at the start of this thread are illegal in Nebraska.

Ten years in Jail because according to the law ...  I mean, it is unbelievably idiotic to suggest that the act of photoshopping is equivalent to exploiting actual children.  Every single prosecutor, judge and jurist involved in this case should be harshly chastised.
Close Smaller – Larger + Reply to this post:
Smileys: :-) ;-) :-D :-p :blush: :cool: :rolleyes: :huh: :-/ <_< :-( :'( :#: :scared: 8-( :nuts: :-O
Special characters:
We love UNB by Yves Goergen!