Re: Let ME lead you by the hand

Because that which constitutes Kiddie Pronz is being redefined, and because it is established by case-law, and because its prosecutors occasionally fumble the ball and lose the game; many of us have legally viewed things which were deemed by the LEAs to be KP.

Jock Sturges, between FBI seizure and exoneration was KP.

Little Lupe, absent of Birth Certificate was KP.

Then legal Danish teenagers became KP.

Then legal Show Me! became KP.

The Tin Drum between seizure and exoneration was KP.

Nekkid baby on bearskin rug photo is now prosecuted as KP.

"vast numbers of images rating 6 on the COPINE scale"

Don't make me laugh.

Quoting peripheral material is supposed to somehow make all the real abusive material suddenly vanish? Laugh all the way to prison if that is your attitude since either you know that the material exists and are merely bull-shitting or you don't so in that case refrain from commenting. If you would like to do some research then you will find descriptions of the material found but perhaps only in certain books or academic papers.

"6 Explicit Erotic Posing: Pictures emphasising genital areas, where the child is either naked, partially clothed or fully clothed.

More than enough of those sorts of images, especially from about 2004? Ring a bell perhaps?

So, if someone crops funny a picture of a girl in a parka, it becomes KP, even if before the "emphasizing" it was a Gap Kids ad?

I couldn't give a monkey's what is or is not considered KP but I do know what actually exists out there and it is exploitative child abuse.

In ye olden days, before the internet, it is well known that after laws against KP were passed, the circulation of it pretty much died. What was being circulated was being done so for sting operations and was ( when revealed ) shown to be legal Danish mags featuring legal Danish teens which had become illegal in the US. ( When it wasn't revealed it could be all manner of things, but when it was... ) At that point the US Postal Inspector was the largest purveyor of Kiddie Smut.

This isn't to say that some actual pictures of children being harmed ( by the same standards we would judge an adult to have been harmed ) aren't also being circulated.

However, they refuse to let any independent source evaluate the material. And they make claims that, when a case is lost ( very rarely it seems ) are always revealed to have been lies. If they lie about the harshness and nature of the content every time we can evaluate the evidence, then they give us no reason to believe their claims when they refuse to show the evidence.

Further, prosecuting the pleasurable and the excruciating as if they were both excruciating shows that they care as little for children as they do for the truth. And again, when evaluation is possible, the horrorshow stuff appears to be so rare as to be nearly nonexistent.

But I'll leave that evaluation to the few who've been able to peek behind the curtain.

Certainly, when a juxtaposition of personal history and legal clime has allowed me to legally view what was deemed later to be the most vile KP, it always turned out to be otherwise.

As I commented either you know and are stone-walling or don't so simply say I DO NOT KNOW.