FLM films - My Webpage

2003-05-12 07:37:26-07:00 - WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (starwolf1999@netscape.net)


Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she is underage! Now you may be curious, and just have to go take a look, but understand this. This classifies as child pornography! And no, I'm not going to tell you which group is supposedly involved. If you visit any of the faker groups and it has her name listed, avoid them! Verbum sapiens.

2003-05-12 07:37:26-07:00 - WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (starwolf1999@netscape.net)


Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she is underage! Now you may be curious, and just have to go take a look, but understand this. This classifies as child pornography! And no, I'm not going to tell you which group is supposedly involved. If you visit any of the faker groups and it has her name listed, avoid them! Verbum sapiens.

2003-05-12 10:27:00-05:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - ("Rick Ramey, Mere Mortal" <rickramey@tepidmail.com>)


On Mon, 12 May 2003 15:00:02 GMT, "Cernunnos" <cernunnosNOSPAM@ns.sympatico.cam> wrote: > >"Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:Xns93796C8C7257Egeneralsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... >> > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not >> > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up >> > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she >> > is underage! >> >> >> Not that I'm really interested in such "psuedo-kiddie porn" anyway, >> but what are you talking about? Something's not child pornography unless >> the actual subject being filmed is underage. If you film a fake with >> someone who simply LOOKS like an underage person, that by itself is not >> illegal (hell, Calvin Klein's entire marketing department opperates on >this >> principal!). > >Nope, if its a person underaged, portrayed as being in a sexual manner your >up shits creek. > Unless of course you are Louis Malle and your film is "Pretty Baby" and your subject is Brooke Shields. Then, it is art and not kiddie porn.

2003-05-12 10:27:00-05:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - ("Rick Ramey, Mere Mortal" <rickramey@tepidmail.com>)


On Mon, 12 May 2003 15:00:02 GMT, "Cernunnos" <cernunnosNOSPAM@ns.sympatico.cam> wrote: > >"Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:Xns93796C8C7257Egeneralsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... >> > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not >> > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up >> > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she >> > is underage! >> >> >> Not that I'm really interested in such "psuedo-kiddie porn" anyway, >> but what are you talking about? Something's not child pornography unless >> the actual subject being filmed is underage. If you film a fake with >> someone who simply LOOKS like an underage person, that by itself is not >> illegal (hell, Calvin Klein's entire marketing department opperates on >this >> principal!). > >Nope, if its a person underaged, portrayed as being in a sexual manner your >up shits creek. > Unless of course you are Louis Malle and your film is "Pretty Baby" and your subject is Brooke Shields. Then, it is art and not kiddie porn.

2003-05-12 12:17:27-07:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (jasctt2001@hotmail.com)


"Cernunnos" <cernunnosNOSPAM@ns.sympatico.cam> wrote in message news:<SFOva.5987$4O6.857388@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>... > "Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns93796C8C7257Egeneralsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... > > > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > > > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > > > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > > > is underage! > > > > > > Not that I'm really interested in such "psuedo-kiddie porn" anyway, > > but what are you talking about? Something's not child pornography unless > > the actual subject being filmed is underage. If you film a fake with > > someone who simply LOOKS like an underage person, that by itself is not > > illegal (hell, Calvin Klein's entire marketing department opperates on > this > > principal!). > > Nope, if its a person underaged, portrayed as being in a sexual manner your > up shits creek. Actually, this is true. Anyone intereted ought to listen to Steven Soderburgh's commentary on the Criterion DVD of "Traffic." In that film, Erica Christensen was just playing a 16 year old junkie while she was really 17 years old in real life. therefore, in the scene where she pays for smack by sleeping with a drug dealer, SS said they had to put a board between the two to remove all aspects of any skin to skin contact. Sort of ridiculous but a good example of what mainstream storytelling has to do to get around the rules.

2003-05-12 12:17:27-07:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (jasctt2001@hotmail.com)


"Cernunnos" <cernunnosNOSPAM@ns.sympatico.cam> wrote in message news:<SFOva.5987$4O6.857388@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>... > "Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns93796C8C7257Egeneralsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... > > > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > > > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > > > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > > > is underage! > > > > > > Not that I'm really interested in such "psuedo-kiddie porn" anyway, > > but what are you talking about? Something's not child pornography unless > > the actual subject being filmed is underage. If you film a fake with > > someone who simply LOOKS like an underage person, that by itself is not > > illegal (hell, Calvin Klein's entire marketing department opperates on > this > > principal!). > > Nope, if its a person underaged, portrayed as being in a sexual manner your > up shits creek. Actually, this is true. Anyone intereted ought to listen to Steven Soderburgh's commentary on the Criterion DVD of "Traffic." In that film, Erica Christensen was just playing a 16 year old junkie while she was really 17 years old in real life. therefore, in the scene where she pays for smack by sleeping with a drug dealer, SS said they had to put a board between the two to remove all aspects of any skin to skin contact. Sort of ridiculous but a good example of what mainstream storytelling has to do to get around the rules.

2003-05-12 14:41:31+00:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - ("Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com>)


> Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > is underage! Not that I'm really interested in such "psuedo-kiddie porn" anyway, but what are you talking about? Something's not child pornography unless the actual subject being filmed is underage. If you film a fake with someone who simply LOOKS like an underage person, that by itself is not illegal (hell, Calvin Klein's entire marketing department opperates on this principal!).

2003-05-12 14:41:31+00:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - ("Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com>)


> Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > is underage! Not that I'm really interested in such "psuedo-kiddie porn" anyway, but what are you talking about? Something's not child pornography unless the actual subject being filmed is underage. If you film a fake with someone who simply LOOKS like an underage person, that by itself is not illegal (hell, Calvin Klein's entire marketing department opperates on this principal!).

2003-05-12 15:00:02+00:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (Cernunnos <cernunnosNOSPAM@ns.sympatico.cam>)


"Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns93796C8C7257Egeneralsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... > > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > > is underage! > > > Not that I'm really interested in such "psuedo-kiddie porn" anyway, > but what are you talking about? Something's not child pornography unless > the actual subject being filmed is underage. If you film a fake with > someone who simply LOOKS like an underage person, that by itself is not > illegal (hell, Calvin Klein's entire marketing department opperates on this > principal!). Nope, if its a person underaged, portrayed as being in a sexual manner your up shits creek.

2003-05-12 15:00:02+00:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (Cernunnos <cernunnosNOSPAM@ns.sympatico.cam>)


"Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns93796C8C7257Egeneralsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... > > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > > is underage! > > > Not that I'm really interested in such "psuedo-kiddie porn" anyway, > but what are you talking about? Something's not child pornography unless > the actual subject being filmed is underage. If you film a fake with > someone who simply LOOKS like an underage person, that by itself is not > illegal (hell, Calvin Klein's entire marketing department opperates on this > principal!). Nope, if its a person underaged, portrayed as being in a sexual manner your up shits creek.

2003-05-12 17:02:27-05:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (7_little_green_men@alienmail.com)


The Gun-Runners <guns@gun-runners.com> wrote: > Let me get this right.... > > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > > reach age 18 until then! > > Michelle turns 18 on 11th October 1985 :o ??? I'm confused... So it seems now she would be... 36? Well preserved.. > "Starwolf1999" <starwolf1999@netscape.net> wrote in message > news:e2ad1b4c.0305120637.6707978c@posting.google.com... > Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > > is underage! > > Now you may be curious, and just have to go take a look, but > > understand this. > > This classifies as child pornography! And no, I'm not going to tell > > you which group is supposedly involved. > > If you visit any of the faker groups and it has her name listed, avoid > > them! Verbum sapiens. -- Subtitles on the LOTR DVD Edition: "Why not try a holiday in Mor- dor this year> See the lovely alkaline pools, and many interesting slimy creatures..."

2003-05-12 17:02:27-05:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (7_little_green_men@alienmail.com)


The Gun-Runners <guns@gun-runners.com> wrote: > Let me get this right.... > > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > > reach age 18 until then! > > Michelle turns 18 on 11th October 1985 :o ??? I'm confused... So it seems now she would be... 36? Well preserved.. > "Starwolf1999" <starwolf1999@netscape.net> wrote in message > news:e2ad1b4c.0305120637.6707978c@posting.google.com... > Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > > is underage! > > Now you may be curious, and just have to go take a look, but > > understand this. > > This classifies as child pornography! And no, I'm not going to tell > > you which group is supposedly involved. > > If you visit any of the faker groups and it has her name listed, avoid > > them! Verbum sapiens. -- Subtitles on the LOTR DVD Edition: "Why not try a holiday in Mor- dor this year> See the lovely alkaline pools, and many interesting slimy creatures..."

2003-05-12 17:30:51-05:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <e2ad1b4c.0305120637.6707978c@posting.google.com>, starwolf1999@netscape.net (Starwolf1999) wrote: > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > is underage! Nope. > Now you may be curious, and just have to go take a look, but > understand this. This classifies as child pornography! Sure, and the Supreme Court has ruled that law unconstitutional so they're not illegal anymore. Don't get so worked up.

2003-05-12 17:30:51-05:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <e2ad1b4c.0305120637.6707978c@posting.google.com>, starwolf1999@netscape.net (Starwolf1999) wrote: > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > is underage! Nope. > Now you may be curious, and just have to go take a look, but > understand this. This classifies as child pornography! Sure, and the Supreme Court has ruled that law unconstitutional so they're not illegal anymore. Don't get so worked up.

2003-05-12 17:31:50-05:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <SFOva.5987$4O6.857388@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, "Cernunnos" <cernunnosNOSPAM@ns.sympatico.cam> wrote: > "Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns93796C8C7257Egeneralsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... > > > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > > > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > > > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > > > is underage! > > > > > > Not that I'm really interested in such "psuedo-kiddie porn" anyway, > > but what are you talking about? Something's not child pornography > > unless > > the actual subject being filmed is underage. If you film a fake with > > someone who simply LOOKS like an underage person, that by itself is not > > illegal (hell, Calvin Klein's entire marketing department opperates on > this > > principal!). > > Nope, if its a person underaged, portrayed as being in a sexual manner > your up shits creek. Really? Then I wonder how they get away with high school productions of Romeo & Juliet?

2003-05-12 17:31:50-05:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <SFOva.5987$4O6.857388@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, "Cernunnos" <cernunnosNOSPAM@ns.sympatico.cam> wrote: > "Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns93796C8C7257Egeneralsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... > > > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > > > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > > > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > > > is underage! > > > > > > Not that I'm really interested in such "psuedo-kiddie porn" anyway, > > but what are you talking about? Something's not child pornography > > unless > > the actual subject being filmed is underage. If you film a fake with > > someone who simply LOOKS like an underage person, that by itself is not > > illegal (hell, Calvin Klein's entire marketing department opperates on > this > > principal!). > > Nope, if its a person underaged, portrayed as being in a sexual manner > your up shits creek. Really? Then I wonder how they get away with high school productions of Romeo & Juliet?

2003-05-12 19:27:43+01:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (The Gun-Runners <guns@gun-runners.com>)


Let me get this right.... > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > reach age 18 until then! Michelle turns 18 on 11th October 1985 :o ??? I'm confused... "Starwolf1999" <starwolf1999@netscape.net> wrote in message news:e2ad1b4c.0305120637.6707978c@posting.google.com... Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > is underage! > Now you may be curious, and just have to go take a look, but > understand this. > This classifies as child pornography! And no, I'm not going to tell > you which group is supposedly involved. > If you visit any of the faker groups and it has her name listed, avoid > them! Verbum sapiens.

2003-05-12 19:27:43+01:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (The Gun-Runners <guns@gun-runners.com>)


Let me get this right.... > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > reach age 18 until then! Michelle turns 18 on 11th October 1985 :o ??? I'm confused... "Starwolf1999" <starwolf1999@netscape.net> wrote in message news:e2ad1b4c.0305120637.6707978c@posting.google.com... Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > is underage! > Now you may be curious, and just have to go take a look, but > understand this. > This classifies as child pornography! And no, I'm not going to tell > you which group is supposedly involved. > If you visit any of the faker groups and it has her name listed, avoid > them! Verbum sapiens.

2003-05-12 20:48:16-07:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (jasctt2001@hotmail.com)


Richard Edwards <riche@pobox.com> wrote in message news:<tQTva.22450$BA.10627763@twister.columbus.rr.com>... > jasctt wrote: > > > > Actually, this is true. Anyone intereted ought to listen to Steven > > Soderburgh's commentary on the Criterion DVD of "Traffic." In that > > film, Erica Christensen was just playing a 16 year old junkie while > > she was really 17 years old in real life. therefore, in the scene > > where she pays for smack by sleeping with a drug dealer, SS said they > > had to put a board between the two to remove all aspects of any skin > > to skin contact. Sort of ridiculous but a good example of what > > mainstream storytelling has to do to get around the rules. > > So, explain to me how Thora Birch could be naked in American Beauty? > She (along with Mena Suvari) were clearly playing underage roles. In > addition, Thora Birch was born in 1982 and American Beauty is from 1999. > Since American Beauty was probably filmed before 1999, wouldn't that > make Thora Birch underage when she was filmed? > > Later, > Richard I didn't make the law. I just know it is on the books. I'm not a lawyer or anything. Surely, there is a alt group for that...peace out.

2003-05-12 20:48:16-07:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (jasctt2001@hotmail.com)


Richard Edwards <riche@pobox.com> wrote in message news:<tQTva.22450$BA.10627763@twister.columbus.rr.com>... > jasctt wrote: > > > > Actually, this is true. Anyone intereted ought to listen to Steven > > Soderburgh's commentary on the Criterion DVD of "Traffic." In that > > film, Erica Christensen was just playing a 16 year old junkie while > > she was really 17 years old in real life. therefore, in the scene > > where she pays for smack by sleeping with a drug dealer, SS said they > > had to put a board between the two to remove all aspects of any skin > > to skin contact. Sort of ridiculous but a good example of what > > mainstream storytelling has to do to get around the rules. > > So, explain to me how Thora Birch could be naked in American Beauty? > She (along with Mena Suvari) were clearly playing underage roles. In > addition, Thora Birch was born in 1982 and American Beauty is from 1999. > Since American Beauty was probably filmed before 1999, wouldn't that > make Thora Birch underage when she was filmed? > > Later, > Richard I didn't make the law. I just know it is on the books. I'm not a lawyer or anything. Surely, there is a alt group for that...peace out.

2003-05-12 20:50:18-05:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (Electric Frog <bouncedvae2702@hotmail.com>)


"Cernunnos" <cernunnosNOSPAM@ns.sympatico.cam> wrote in message news:SFOva.5987$4O6.857388@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca... > > "Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns93796C8C7257Egeneralsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... > > > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > > > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > > > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > > > is underage! > > > > > > Not that I'm really interested in such "psuedo-kiddie porn" anyway, > > but what are you talking about? Something's not child pornography unless > > the actual subject being filmed is underage. If you film a fake with > > someone who simply LOOKS like an underage person, that by itself is not > > illegal (hell, Calvin Klein's entire marketing department opperates on > this > > principal!). > > Nope, if its a person underaged, portrayed as being in a sexual manner your > up shits creek. > It all depends within which country you live, a similar case has been kicking around the British legal system for a year or so the problem is that a montage is not a real person and therefore is not strictly underage

2003-05-12 20:50:18-05:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (Electric Frog <bouncedvae2702@hotmail.com>)


"Cernunnos" <cernunnosNOSPAM@ns.sympatico.cam> wrote in message news:SFOva.5987$4O6.857388@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca... > > "Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns93796C8C7257Egeneralsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... > > > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > > > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > > > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > > > is underage! > > > > > > Not that I'm really interested in such "psuedo-kiddie porn" anyway, > > but what are you talking about? Something's not child pornography unless > > the actual subject being filmed is underage. If you film a fake with > > someone who simply LOOKS like an underage person, that by itself is not > > illegal (hell, Calvin Klein's entire marketing department opperates on > this > > principal!). > > Nope, if its a person underaged, portrayed as being in a sexual manner your > up shits creek. > It all depends within which country you live, a similar case has been kicking around the British legal system for a year or so the problem is that a montage is not a real person and therefore is not strictly underage

2003-05-12 20:52:41+00:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (Richard Edwards <riche@pobox.com>)


jasctt wrote: > > Actually, this is true. Anyone intereted ought to listen to Steven > Soderburgh's commentary on the Criterion DVD of "Traffic." In that > film, Erica Christensen was just playing a 16 year old junkie while > she was really 17 years old in real life. therefore, in the scene > where she pays for smack by sleeping with a drug dealer, SS said they > had to put a board between the two to remove all aspects of any skin > to skin contact. Sort of ridiculous but a good example of what > mainstream storytelling has to do to get around the rules. So, explain to me how Thora Birch could be naked in American Beauty? She (along with Mena Suvari) were clearly playing underage roles. In addition, Thora Birch was born in 1982 and American Beauty is from 1999. Since American Beauty was probably filmed before 1999, wouldn't that make Thora Birch underage when she was filmed? Later, Richard

2003-05-12 20:52:41+00:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (Richard Edwards <riche@pobox.com>)


jasctt wrote: > > Actually, this is true. Anyone intereted ought to listen to Steven > Soderburgh's commentary on the Criterion DVD of "Traffic." In that > film, Erica Christensen was just playing a 16 year old junkie while > she was really 17 years old in real life. therefore, in the scene > where she pays for smack by sleeping with a drug dealer, SS said they > had to put a board between the two to remove all aspects of any skin > to skin contact. Sort of ridiculous but a good example of what > mainstream storytelling has to do to get around the rules. So, explain to me how Thora Birch could be naked in American Beauty? She (along with Mena Suvari) were clearly playing underage roles. In addition, Thora Birch was born in 1982 and American Beauty is from 1999. Since American Beauty was probably filmed before 1999, wouldn't that make Thora Birch underage when she was filmed? Later, Richard

2003-05-13 01:15:02+00:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Rick Ramey, Mere Mortal wrote in message ... >On Mon, 12 May 2003 15:00:02 GMT, "Cernunnos" ><cernunnosNOSPAM@ns.sympatico.cam> wrote: > >> >>"Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:Xns93796C8C7257Egeneralsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... >>> > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not >>> > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up >>> > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she >>> > is underage! >>> >>> >>> Not that I'm really interested in such "psuedo-kiddie porn" anyway, >>> but what are you talking about? Something's not child pornography unless >>> the actual subject being filmed is underage. If you film a fake with >>> someone who simply LOOKS like an underage person, that by itself is not >>> illegal (hell, Calvin Klein's entire marketing department opperates on >>this >>> principal!). >> >>Nope, if its a person underaged, portrayed as being in a sexual manner your >>up shits creek. >> > >Unless of course you are Louis Malle and your film is "Pretty Baby" >and your subject is Brooke Shields. Then, it is art and not kiddie >porn. It helps a lot if the film is a big-budget Hollywood production and not shot on video in a cheap motel room. "Caligula" was sheer porn, but being big budget and supported by Penthouse (back when people still read Penthouse...) made it pretty famous. Back in 1978 the PC freaks and the fundamentalist christian geeks didn't have the strong grip on politicians that allows them to push more and more laws about what people are allowed to do or say today.

2003-05-13 01:15:02+00:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Rick Ramey, Mere Mortal wrote in message ... >On Mon, 12 May 2003 15:00:02 GMT, "Cernunnos" ><cernunnosNOSPAM@ns.sympatico.cam> wrote: > >> >>"Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:Xns93796C8C7257Egeneralsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... >>> > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not >>> > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up >>> > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she >>> > is underage! >>> >>> >>> Not that I'm really interested in such "psuedo-kiddie porn" anyway, >>> but what are you talking about? Something's not child pornography unless >>> the actual subject being filmed is underage. If you film a fake with >>> someone who simply LOOKS like an underage person, that by itself is not >>> illegal (hell, Calvin Klein's entire marketing department opperates on >>this >>> principal!). >> >>Nope, if its a person underaged, portrayed as being in a sexual manner your >>up shits creek. >> > >Unless of course you are Louis Malle and your film is "Pretty Baby" >and your subject is Brooke Shields. Then, it is art and not kiddie >porn. It helps a lot if the film is a big-budget Hollywood production and not shot on video in a cheap motel room. "Caligula" was sheer porn, but being big budget and supported by Penthouse (back when people still read Penthouse...) made it pretty famous. Back in 1978 the PC freaks and the fundamentalist christian geeks didn't have the strong grip on politicians that allows them to push more and more laws about what people are allowed to do or say today.

2003-05-13 03:59:01-04:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:BTR1702-E70CA5.17305112052003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > In article <e2ad1b4c.0305120637.6707978c@posting.google.com>, > starwolf1999@netscape.net (Starwolf1999) wrote: > > > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > > is underage! > > Nope. > > > Now you may be curious, and just have to go take a look, but > > understand this. This classifies as child pornography! > > Sure, and the Supreme Court has ruled that law unconstitutional so > they're not illegal anymore. That's what I figured. But when was that? I've been hearing over the past week about a very recent law that basically did the same thing. I think it was a rider to some kind of Amber alert-type bill or something.

2003-05-13 03:59:01-04:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (The Babaloughesian <me@privacy.net>)


"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:BTR1702-E70CA5.17305112052003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > In article <e2ad1b4c.0305120637.6707978c@posting.google.com>, > starwolf1999@netscape.net (Starwolf1999) wrote: > > > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > > is underage! > > Nope. > > > Now you may be curious, and just have to go take a look, but > > understand this. This classifies as child pornography! > > Sure, and the Supreme Court has ruled that law unconstitutional so > they're not illegal anymore. That's what I figured. But when was that? I've been hearing over the past week about a very recent law that basically did the same thing. I think it was a rider to some kind of Amber alert-type bill or something.

2003-05-14 02:18:51+00:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (chibiangi <chibiangi@noemail.net>)


"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:qGXva.151849$ja4.7254602@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > Rick Ramey, Mere Mortal wrote in message ... > >On Mon, 12 May 2003 15:00:02 GMT, "Cernunnos" > ><cernunnosNOSPAM@ns.sympatico.cam> wrote: > > > >> > >>"Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:Xns93796C8C7257Egeneralsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... > >>> > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > >>> > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > >>> > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > >>> > is underage! > >>> > >>> > >>> Not that I'm really interested in such "psuedo-kiddie porn" anyway, > >>> but what are you talking about? Something's not child pornography > unless > >>> the actual subject being filmed is underage. If you film a fake with > >>> someone who simply LOOKS like an underage person, that by itself is not > >>> illegal (hell, Calvin Klein's entire marketing department opperates on > >>this > >>> principal!). > >> > >>Nope, if its a person underaged, portrayed as being in a sexual manner > your > >>up shits creek. > >> > > > >Unless of course you are Louis Malle and your film is "Pretty Baby" > >and your subject is Brooke Shields. Then, it is art and not kiddie > >porn. > > It helps a lot if the film is a big-budget Hollywood production and not > shot on video in a cheap motel room. "Caligula" was sheer porn, but being > big budget and supported by Penthouse (back when people still read > Penthouse...) made it pretty famous. > Back in 1978 the PC freaks and the fundamentalist christian geeks didn't > have the strong grip on politicians that allows them to push more and more > laws about what people are allowed to do or say today. Aethelrede actually remembers the 70s! *scary*

2003-05-14 02:18:51+00:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (chibiangi <chibiangi@noemail.net>)


"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:qGXva.151849$ja4.7254602@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > Rick Ramey, Mere Mortal wrote in message ... > >On Mon, 12 May 2003 15:00:02 GMT, "Cernunnos" > ><cernunnosNOSPAM@ns.sympatico.cam> wrote: > > > >> > >>"Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:Xns93796C8C7257Egeneralsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... > >>> > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > >>> > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > >>> > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > >>> > is underage! > >>> > >>> > >>> Not that I'm really interested in such "psuedo-kiddie porn" anyway, > >>> but what are you talking about? Something's not child pornography > unless > >>> the actual subject being filmed is underage. If you film a fake with > >>> someone who simply LOOKS like an underage person, that by itself is not > >>> illegal (hell, Calvin Klein's entire marketing department opperates on > >>this > >>> principal!). > >> > >>Nope, if its a person underaged, portrayed as being in a sexual manner > your > >>up shits creek. > >> > > > >Unless of course you are Louis Malle and your film is "Pretty Baby" > >and your subject is Brooke Shields. Then, it is art and not kiddie > >porn. > > It helps a lot if the film is a big-budget Hollywood production and not > shot on video in a cheap motel room. "Caligula" was sheer porn, but being > big budget and supported by Penthouse (back when people still read > Penthouse...) made it pretty famous. > Back in 1978 the PC freaks and the fundamentalist christian geeks didn't > have the strong grip on politicians that allows them to push more and more > laws about what people are allowed to do or say today. Aethelrede actually remembers the 70s! *scary*

2003-05-14 03:22:27+00:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_hawthorn@hotmail.com>)


"chibiangi" <chibiangi@noemail.net> wrote in message news:fIhwa.70817$4P1.6455380@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > news:qGXva.151849$ja4.7254602@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > > Rick Ramey, Mere Mortal wrote in message ... > > >On Mon, 12 May 2003 15:00:02 GMT, "Cernunnos" > > ><cernunnosNOSPAM@ns.sympatico.cam> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >>"Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:Xns93796C8C7257Egeneralsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... > > >>> > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > > >>> > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned > up > > >>> > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since > she > > >>> > is underage! > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Not that I'm really interested in such "psuedo-kiddie porn" > anyway, > > >>> but what are you talking about? Something's not child pornography > > unless > > >>> the actual subject being filmed is underage. If you film a fake with > > >>> someone who simply LOOKS like an underage person, that by itself is > not > > >>> illegal (hell, Calvin Klein's entire marketing department opperates on > > >>this > > >>> principal!). > > >> > > >>Nope, if its a person underaged, portrayed as being in a sexual manner > > your > > >>up shits creek. > > >> > > > > > >Unless of course you are Louis Malle and your film is "Pretty Baby" > > >and your subject is Brooke Shields. Then, it is art and not kiddie > > >porn. > > > > It helps a lot if the film is a big-budget Hollywood production and > not > > shot on video in a cheap motel room. "Caligula" was sheer porn, but being > > big budget and supported by Penthouse (back when people still read > > Penthouse...) made it pretty famous. > > Back in 1978 the PC freaks and the fundamentalist christian geeks > didn't > > have the strong grip on politicians that allows them to push more and more > > laws about what people are allowed to do or say today. > > > Aethelrede actually remembers the 70s! > > *scary* > > > What's scary about that? I had a great time during the 70s.... ...or at least, that's what I've been told....? -- Rowan Hawthorn

2003-05-14 03:22:27+00:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_hawthorn@hotmail.com>)


"chibiangi" <chibiangi@noemail.net> wrote in message news:fIhwa.70817$4P1.6455380@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > > "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message > news:qGXva.151849$ja4.7254602@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > > > Rick Ramey, Mere Mortal wrote in message ... > > >On Mon, 12 May 2003 15:00:02 GMT, "Cernunnos" > > ><cernunnosNOSPAM@ns.sympatico.cam> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >>"Steve D. Perkins" <dontwritesteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:Xns93796C8C7257Egeneralsteveperkins@130.133.1.4... > > >>> > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > > >>> > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned > up > > >>> > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since > she > > >>> > is underage! > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Not that I'm really interested in such "psuedo-kiddie porn" > anyway, > > >>> but what are you talking about? Something's not child pornography > > unless > > >>> the actual subject being filmed is underage. If you film a fake with > > >>> someone who simply LOOKS like an underage person, that by itself is > not > > >>> illegal (hell, Calvin Klein's entire marketing department opperates on > > >>this > > >>> principal!). > > >> > > >>Nope, if its a person underaged, portrayed as being in a sexual manner > > your > > >>up shits creek. > > >> > > > > > >Unless of course you are Louis Malle and your film is "Pretty Baby" > > >and your subject is Brooke Shields. Then, it is art and not kiddie > > >porn. > > > > It helps a lot if the film is a big-budget Hollywood production and > not > > shot on video in a cheap motel room. "Caligula" was sheer porn, but being > > big budget and supported by Penthouse (back when people still read > > Penthouse...) made it pretty famous. > > Back in 1978 the PC freaks and the fundamentalist christian geeks > didn't > > have the strong grip on politicians that allows them to push more and more > > laws about what people are allowed to do or say today. > > > Aethelrede actually remembers the 70s! > > *scary* > > > What's scary about that? I had a great time during the 70s.... ...or at least, that's what I've been told....? -- Rowan Hawthorn

2003-05-14 16:47:11+01:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (Harry the Horse <HarryAtTheStable@hotmail.com>)


"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:BTR1702-E70CA5.17305112052003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > In article <e2ad1b4c.0305120637.6707978c@posting.google.com>, > starwolf1999@netscape.net (Starwolf1999) wrote: > > > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > > is underage! > > Nope. > > > Now you may be curious, and just have to go take a look, but > > understand this. This classifies as child pornography! > > Sure, and the Supreme Court has ruled that law unconstitutional so > they're not illegal anymore. > > Don't get so worked up. > In the UK, a nudie fake of MT would be classed as 'child pornography'. This is because the actual offence is possession of an actual or fabricated indecent image of a minor (under 16, in this case). 'Indecency' is a much looser than 'obscene' and doesn't necessarily imply nudity. My own view is this taking the law far beyond where it needs to be to protect real children from real sexual abuse.

2003-05-14 16:47:11+01:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (Harry the Horse <HarryAtTheStable@hotmail.com>)


"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:BTR1702-E70CA5.17305112052003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > In article <e2ad1b4c.0305120637.6707978c@posting.google.com>, > starwolf1999@netscape.net (Starwolf1999) wrote: > > > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > > is underage! > > Nope. > > > Now you may be curious, and just have to go take a look, but > > understand this. This classifies as child pornography! > > Sure, and the Supreme Court has ruled that law unconstitutional so > they're not illegal anymore. > > Don't get so worked up. > In the UK, a nudie fake of MT would be classed as 'child pornography'. This is because the actual offence is possession of an actual or fabricated indecent image of a minor (under 16, in this case). 'Indecency' is a much looser than 'obscene' and doesn't necessarily imply nudity. My own view is this taking the law far beyond where it needs to be to protect real children from real sexual abuse.

2003-05-14 18:14:18-05:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <1052926884.88872.0@iris.uk.clara.net>, "Harry the Horse" <HarryAtTheStable@hotmail.com> wrote: > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:BTR1702-E70CA5.17305112052003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > > In article <e2ad1b4c.0305120637.6707978c@posting.google.com>, > > starwolf1999@netscape.net (Starwolf1999) wrote: > > > > > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > > > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > > > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > > > is underage! > > > > Nope. > > > > > Now you may be curious, and just have to go take a look, but > > > understand this. This classifies as child pornography! > > > > Sure, and the Supreme Court has ruled that law unconstitutional so > > they're not illegal anymore. > > > > Don't get so worked up. > > > In the UK, a nudie fake of MT would be classed as 'child pornography'. > This is because the actual offence is possession of an actual or fabricated > indecent image of a minor (under 16, in this case). If that's the case, the possession of a nudie fake of Trachtenberg wouldn't be child pornography in the UK either since Trachtenberg is older than 16.

2003-05-14 18:14:18-05:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <1052926884.88872.0@iris.uk.clara.net>, "Harry the Horse" <HarryAtTheStable@hotmail.com> wrote: > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:BTR1702-E70CA5.17305112052003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > > In article <e2ad1b4c.0305120637.6707978c@posting.google.com>, > > starwolf1999@netscape.net (Starwolf1999) wrote: > > > > > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > > > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > > > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > > > is underage! > > > > Nope. > > > > > Now you may be curious, and just have to go take a look, but > > > understand this. This classifies as child pornography! > > > > Sure, and the Supreme Court has ruled that law unconstitutional so > > they're not illegal anymore. > > > > Don't get so worked up. > > > In the UK, a nudie fake of MT would be classed as 'child pornography'. > This is because the actual offence is possession of an actual or fabricated > indecent image of a minor (under 16, in this case). If that's the case, the possession of a nudie fake of Trachtenberg wouldn't be child pornography in the UK either since Trachtenberg is older than 16.

2003-05-15 16:07:43-07:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (lpadilla@voicenet.com)


starwolf1999@netscape.net (Starwolf1999) wrote in message news:<e2ad1b4c.0305120637.6707978c@posting.google.com>... > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > is underage! > Now you may be curious, and just have to go take a look, but > understand this. > This classifies as child pornography! And no, I'm not going to tell > you which group is supposedly involved. > If you visit any of the faker groups and it has her name listed, avoid > them! Verbum sapiens. FWIW, it's Michelle C. Trachtenberg (C for Christine)!

2003-05-15 16:07:43-07:00 - Re: WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - (lpadilla@voicenet.com)


starwolf1999@netscape.net (Starwolf1999) wrote in message news:<e2ad1b4c.0305120637.6707978c@posting.google.com>... > Michelle S. Trachtenberg was born October 11th, 1985. She does not > reach age 18 until then! Fake nudes of her have reportedly turned up > on one of the binary groups. These fake nudes are ILLEGAL, since she > is underage! > Now you may be curious, and just have to go take a look, but > understand this. > This classifies as child pornography! And no, I'm not going to tell > you which group is supposedly involved. > If you visit any of the faker groups and it has her name listed, avoid > them! Verbum sapiens. FWIW, it's Michelle C. Trachtenberg (C for Christine)!