—————
To: psykotik@gmail.com
Subject: [Fwd: Child Pornography hosted by imageevent.com]
From: support@imageevent.com
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 10:55:44 -0700
We received a complaint about one of your albums.
We have converted this album in to a “personal” album. This album violates the ImageEvent terms and will appreciate if you remove this album. http://imageevent.com/terms.jsp
Thanks,
ImageEvent.com
–
E-mail link extracted from our mail system based on pornographic content.
Photo series http://imageevent.com/psykotik/lindsaylohannipslip
Given Lindsay Lohan was born 2 July 1986, and is therefore 17 years old, don’t these pictures on your site constitute child pornography?!?!?
—————
HAHAHAHA. Bullshit. I think it’s funny that someone actually complained about those Lohan pics. It’s actually even funnier because i just finished watching Eurotrip and there’s a funny and yet OH SO TRUE statement about the ridiculousness of puritanical America.
“You know America was founded by prudes. Prudes who left Europe because they hated all the kinky, steamy European sex that was going on.”
Seriously now. What is it? June 1st today? And Lohan turns 18 in like a months time. WHAT FREAKIN’ DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE.
Oh so it’s like July 1st, 11:59pm and i’m not allowed to see Lohan’s tit or think naughty thoughts about her and then 60 seconds later it’s okay? Honestly. And ‘Child pornography’. How are those pics child pornography? PRUDES.
Child – Pronunciation Key (chld)
n. pl. children (chldrn)
1. A person between birth and puberty.
2.
a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
b. An infant; a baby.
3. One who is childish or immature.
4. A son or daughter; an offspring.
5. A member of a tribe; descendant: children of Abraham.
LINDSAY LOHAN IS HARDLY A CHILD. She drinks, she smokes, she stays out late partying her ass off, she slips COLIN FARRELL her number and has reportedly been seen canoodling with Wilder Valderrama, FEZ from That 70’s Show, who’s 24 years old. Hardly a ‘child’.
And besides, 17 is the legal age of consent in New York, where Lindsay was born.
Ah well. No biggie. It was just a trial account anyway and it was gonna expire in like 3 days.
Oh and if you fuckers wanna argue about what constitutes ‘child pornography’, and how icky it is and how it’s the DEVIL then explain American Beauty!!!!!!!!!! WON BEST PICTURE AT THE OSCARS IN 2000!!! Thora Birch was 17 when she made that movie and THE WHOLE WORLD SAW HER BOOBIES (not just one tit).
Yep. American Beauty. First ‘child porn’ to win best picture at the OSCARS. And i guess that makes everybody who’s ever seen that movie a PEDOPHILE too.
I got your ‘child pornography’ right here.
I think our European friends are probably laughing at this post right now. Honestly, it’s ridiculous. ‘Child pornogaphy’ my ass.
By the way, Michelle Traheetarbnaebergrg is fucking ugly. But i’d hit it with a paper bag over her head.
Update:
—————
To: psykotik@gmail.com
Subject: lohan as child porn
From: Kevin
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 17:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
Big fan of the site, but I just wanted to let you know as someone who knows the law, what you are saying about in one month it’ll be legal, 11:59 July 1 illegal, 12:00 July 2, legal is actually wrong.
Legally, (and again, I know, who gives a flying fuck, but just looking out for you) those pictures will always be illegal because they were taken before her 18th birthday.
It’s ridiculous, but what can ya do.
—————
Another perspective:
—————
To: psykotik@gmail.com
Subject: Why those Lindsay Lohan pics are not child porn.
From: Chad
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 18:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
I did a little research on your problem with those Lindsay Lohan pictures you posted. USC Title 18, Part I, Chapter 110, Section 2256 defines child pornography, but each definition is dependent on what is called “sexually explicit conduct.” The closest definition of sexually explicit conduct to which those Lohan pictures come is “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area.” I, however, would argue that the breasts do not constitute the “genitals” nor the “pubic area.” Even if they can be considered off-limits, though, “lascivious” means “lewd, lustful.” The pictures of a nipple slip in a public place, however, cannot be themselves lewd nor lustful. They, therefore, are not defined as child pornography in Section 2256. That’s probably how the scene in American Beauty you talked about on your site is actually legal. While one person may get lewd or lustful feelings from seeing Lohan pictures or that Birch scene, the pictures themselves do not depict anything lewd nor lustful, which is key to the definition of child pornography.
Basically, ImageEvents.com seems full of shit. Given the douchebag John Ashcroft as Attorney General, however, I can see why ImageEvents.com may have some internal regulation under which those Lohan pictures may have fallen. Everyone else on your site who is bitching and moaning about those pictures are, however, quite stupid. Hope I helped out a bit, and your site rocks.
—————