?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

For FUCK'S SAKE



That is the signature image of Dilbertschalter on FESS.

Now, I don't like Dilbert; I think he's a tremendous twat. But I see nothing wrong with this image.

That doesn't stop one of my primary members!! I'm on a FESS day off? NO! He's going to rail against this, saying that it could possibly violate CHILD PORN statutes, and general obscenity laws, and that we should get rid of it.

I think in this case, he's daft, but I'll leave this open to interpretation.

... What does everyone think? CP? "Basically" porn? Or just a risque image that should be allowed by a site that requires all of it's users to at least be 13?

Comments

( 30 comments — Leave a comment )
aitherion
Aug. 4th, 2008 04:42 am (UTC)
Bit risque, but I don't think it can be considered 'porn' unless it's, you know... pornographic in nature?
shotglass
Aug. 4th, 2008 04:49 am (UTC)
She's fully clothes minus, it seems, panties. Nothing's showing unless you want to go in there with a magnifying glass and try to find her vag in that shadowy area (and if someone is so concerned about child porn, it begs the question of why they're looking so closely). I'd say it's fine -- just a bit risque. I've seen worse on sidebar ads for so-called "worksafe" sites.
sarajayechan
Aug. 4th, 2008 04:52 am (UTC)
Well, nothing's showing, and I didn't even notice the panties coming off until I gave it a second glance...gonna have to jump on the "risque" bandwagon.
laylea
Aug. 4th, 2008 05:22 am (UTC)
Better idea:

Ask Dilbertschalter find out the age of the model, and what kind of magazine/coverspread it is.

If she's not legal, then definitely figure out the magazine/spread type.

If it's something involving soft core Asian girls, nix the picture, you know that's a bush and not another pair of dark panties she's wearing.

Do research -- a deliberately-ambiguous picture is likely ambiguous for a reason.
laylea
Aug. 4th, 2008 05:41 am (UTC)
Addendum:

She's legal (Azumi Kawashima: August 8, 1979), so there's no possibility of CP (lol, obviously).

However, she's a Japanese adult video actress. A porn star. An active one at that, although seems to have fallen in a five-year rut; regardless, porn star in a rather-ambiguous picture?

Your call.
(no subject) - superbus - Aug. 4th, 2008 05:50 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - otosaretatenshi - Aug. 4th, 2008 03:33 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - superbus - Aug. 4th, 2008 06:05 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - otosaretatenshi - Aug. 4th, 2008 06:17 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - superbus - Aug. 4th, 2008 06:20 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - otosaretatenshi - Aug. 4th, 2008 06:25 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - superbus - Aug. 4th, 2008 06:37 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - otosaretatenshi - Aug. 4th, 2008 06:47 pm (UTC) - Expand
hinata19
Aug. 4th, 2008 05:32 am (UTC)
I didn't notice the panties at first glance either. So unless the person is offended by partly bare legs...

Though Anne's idea is good too. Chances are, though, he'd just remove it rather than go through all the trouble. :P
(Deleted comment)
superbus
Aug. 4th, 2008 05:48 am (UTC)
Aren't you the one way back when that removed my image of a girl in a Canadian bikini? XD
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - superbus - Aug. 4th, 2008 05:51 am (UTC) - Expand
swordsaint0
Aug. 4th, 2008 06:05 am (UTC)
I was actually gonna bring this up to you in AIM when you got a chance, but seeing as you're here...

Blacken brought this to me, too, and I'll note ONE thing he's right on: to qualify as CP, it needn't show actual nudity, it just needs to be sexually suggestive/exploitative.

I was going to note here that she didn't look underage to me: if anything, she looks like one of those adults trying to PRETEND they're much younger. However, Laylea's post rendered that needless.

As for the issue of worksafe-ness? I'm the same as you, I've got loose standards.

shotglass
Aug. 4th, 2008 05:08 pm (UTC)
she looks like one of those adults trying to PRETEND they're much younger

Good point -- I got that vibe from it too. Just didn't want to say anything because I'm pretty much the worst ever at guessing ages.
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - superbus - Aug. 4th, 2008 06:04 pm (UTC) - Expand
nailbat
Aug. 4th, 2008 09:33 am (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with that picture. If anything, it only implies nudity, and implication does not CP make. Also, she looks at least in high school, judging by the uniform. (Yes, I do pay attention to things like that. It looks more mature, kay? :<) It's probably just a suggestive photoshoot for people who just REALLY like uniforms. If you get my meaning. Porn actress or no, she's not SHOWING anything.
punksteriot
Aug. 4th, 2008 01:30 pm (UTC)
I know nothing about the community in question but that's an image that I would see on a magazine ad so I really can't see anything wrong with it. Unless there's something that I'm majorly missing.
dmajohnson
Aug. 4th, 2008 02:35 pm (UTC)
How is that any worse than the porn Kanzakii posts? D:
superbus
Aug. 4th, 2008 06:05 pm (UTC)
That's what I asked. That got responded to that we've removed a couple of images of his in the past. This is where I asked where these magical, invisible logs are that I can't find, and how I know so little about my motherfucking website.
(no subject) - dmajohnson - Aug. 4th, 2008 06:23 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lordglenn - Aug. 4th, 2008 08:12 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - swordsaint0 - Aug. 4th, 2008 09:58 pm (UTC) - Expand
otosaretatenshi
Aug. 4th, 2008 03:36 pm (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with it, then again maybe there's something wrong with me. I didn't see anything wrong with my Nao image either...
yubsie
Aug. 4th, 2008 05:42 pm (UTC)
I, umm, didn't notice the panties until other people mentioned them. It's a bit risque, but the woman is apparently older than I am. :p Plus it doesn't actually SHOW anything questionable.
samuraiter
Aug. 4th, 2008 07:36 pm (UTC)
Creepy? Yes. Illegal? No, though it's not especially far from the line.
lordglenn
Aug. 4th, 2008 08:14 pm (UTC)
As others have already said, she's not showing anything that's against our rules. She might be implying it, but it's not there, so there's nothing "wrong" (in terms of guidelines) with it. If we let kanzakii keep his images, I don't think it's fair to make Dilbert remove his.
( 30 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

Mr. Met
superbus
Superbus the BRAVE!!!
Superbusnet

Latest Month

July 2013
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner