-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 98621)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, MP4, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 8203 KB.
  • Images greater than 515x515 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 13587 unique user posts. View catalog

/hebe/ ~ who is she?
File 154221861862.jpg - (77.92KB , 684x600 , 15421444626.jpg )
98621 No. 98621
does she only have this vid?
26 posts omitted. Last 50 shown. Expand all images
>> No. 112433
She is video taping and distributing her own cp. So this is not illegal. If you or I taped her and distributed the tape then we would be liable. But the only liability here is Live.me..and lisa for taping her naked body..not sure if taping yourself nude is illegal ?
>> No. 112441
File 154646131854.jpg - (35.00KB , 360x640 , 13Yo Lisa (1)_mp4_20190102_160410_637.jpg )
>> No. 112574
File 154647913547.jpg - (105.25KB , 960x894 , 49017783_2195917430470965_6114866138997325824_n.jpg )
Oh, so you tell us the law then ..you wise ass. First tell me where the fuvk you see anything illigal about a girl who voluntarily strips naked in her own bedroom in front of her own fucking camera with not a penis in sight? That's not hild pornography ..it's not even pornography..it's nudity...or exhibitionism..but nothing illegal..if it was ..the mods would have removed it by now..dumbass !!
>> No. 112750
18 U.S. Code § 2256
Because you vomit bullshit, here's the U.S. Federal section and explains how it is illegal in the U.S. regardless of whether you think the girl is doing it voluntarily.
>> No. 112755
Regarding 112574...in the UK you commit an offence looking at her and she commits an offence recording herself and putting it in the public domain.
>> No. 112790
File 154654796711.jpg - (135.12KB , 694x768 , fed35f74.jpg )
I'm a lawyer bro. I would love to see someone try and take me to court for looking at a video that an underage girl recorded of herself. You must live in some communist country. The laws of america have no such bearing on nudity...whether it's underage or not...she is in possession of it...not the person watching...and possion is still 9/10 of all laws. And besides, there is no sexual activity here...no matter what anyone's fantasy is...she is not being sexual. I will defer you to the you-tube video of the girl demonstrating how to insert a tampon. So STFU..YOU'RE a paranoid troll..you're scaring noone.
>> No. 112800
What part of America do you live in cause any time a childs genetals are in plain view sexual or not the U.S. supreme court ruled its illegal
we are all here under that false assumption that we are safe simply not true if they catch you with it You are toast so take all the prcausions you an i do
>> No. 112803
I know the whole Masonic Mystery School Court System front to back. so yes I could take you to court. And laugh at how you would try and play the victim. Those days are over little man.
>> No. 112812
if you are so smart Mr lawyer man then explain
why a man with 2 daughters 5 and 8 wer home taking fun pictures when his 2 daughters deceided to play a pratical joke on him and moon him in the middle of taking pictures so when he took the pictures to get developed the store turned him in the court ruled the pictures were child porn cause you could see both girls vaginas he was subsequently stripped of his parental rights and given 20 years in prison
>> No. 112822
File 154655299936.jpg - (41.51KB , 720x899 , 49368794_784478771906521_8698586445566181376_n.jpg )
There's more to that troll story than a daughter mooning as a practical joke. Or else, just like I said above: It takes something called Possession, evidence, and court cases need evidence..possession of the pictures were in the father's possession at the photo developing place and used as evidence.) He took the pictures. He went to get them developed...he is in possession of child pornography ...this video posted here I am not in possession of nor did I record with any equipment belonging to me. Possession of the video is Lisa. Distribution is by Lisa...the website called LIVE.ME is possibly liable. But that would depend whether her parents pressed charges or not. And to the other Troll, you would be laughing at me playing victim because there would be nothing to charge me with...unless they want my eyeballs..they could charge my eyeballs..you're a silly troll.
>> No. 112830
First off, we're not bros. You're not my kin. Secondly, just because you claim to be a lawyer doesn't mean you know criminal law. Had you looked at the US Code and even California 311 PC, it outlines what are considered legitimate defenses and "I'm a lawyer bro" isn't in there. Nor is if the girl is doing so voluntarily. Many here know there are numerous laws regarding nudity. If you're talking about nudism in controlled environments, those are limited protections and do not extend to you.

As for your weak-ass argument about possession, you obviously haven't read the court cases involving cache files constituting possession. And before the Cloud Act, Live.Me wouldn't have been held liable.

If you had actually passed the BAR exam, I'm glad because it means any window-licker with a self-righteous attitude could pass it. You're a perv. Just acknowledge it and move on.
>> No. 112831
Lol. Idiot. If you're trying to convince all of us that this isn't illegal, then by all means post it on your Facebook profile and share a screenshot - we'd love for you to prove us wrong.
>> No. 112845
Lol. You probably havent seen all the law n order shows like i have. At least I can say im almost through my first year of law school and know everything now! maybe if i got better than Cs on my tests i would know more.
>> No. 112849
How long before these legal eagles arguing law gets this set as a Trolling Thread?
>> No. 112883
As long as the Star Sessions threads are open, this thread is god to go.
>> No. 113003

You cannot be this fucking stupid. Your name should be Humbert Humbert not Nabokov (who was not fucking stupid as you clearly are).

"I'm a lawyer bro."

I've known a lot of lawyers over the years, not one of them EVER said, "I'm a lawyer, bro." Unless they were doing a Keanu Reeves impression.

Let's just start with the horseshit you're writing:

" I would love to see someone try and take me to court for looking at a video that an underage girl recorded of herself. "

You're a moron. If the video violates the Dost Test, you're toast. It's that simple.

Whether the girl recorded it or it was her pervy stedad is completely fucking irrelevant.

Teens are getting busted left and right for uploading nude and sexual videos. IF THE GIRL HERSELF CAN GET BUSTED, you can get busted, ya goddamned tard.

". I will defer you to the you-tube video of the girl demonstrating how to insert a tampon"

Jesus, you are really, really fucking retarded. You're retarding yourself right into the penitentiary.

That type of video would be exactly the same as the Medical School Instructional videos that can also be found on Youtube.

You cannot actually be so fucking stupid as to confuse something like that with a self-shot sexy nude video of a goddamned 14 year old girl.

Finally - Jesus you're a fucking idiot. And the FBI guys are going to laugh their fucking nuts off when they arrest you.
>> No. 113004

Well, it's the possession of the file that's illegal, not the mere viewing of it.

After all they have to prove you possessed it in order to prove you saw it. And the only way to do that is to find it on your machine.

(So if your shit is encrypted they can't prove nuthin'.)

But you're fucked in the UK anyway - there's no more Freedom of Speech. There's no more double jeopardy and you no longer have the right to remain silent when questioned by the police.

And the fucking Tories are turnign the country in to Londonistan.
>> No. 113989
New here someone please help idk how to download the vids, when i click on a link it brings me to like a spam page
>> No. 114125
>And the only way to do that is to find it on your machine.

How many actually know how computers work? You can not see anything on your computer unless it is first downloaded to the cache on your computer. ON YOUR COMPUTER. As LEA only have to find an image on your machine to charge you, this includes your cache.
>> No. 114446
File 154708865747.png - (880.88KB , 720x882 , TMgcpwt.png )
OK...THE PARANOID PEDOPHILE TROLL BOYS believe that we are all liable and legally responsible because we watched a video online of a 13 year old girl undressing and showing us a close-up of her sweet little genitalia..sorry "bro" you're dead wrong ...and making this a troll thread is not going to make you right.
>> No. 114818
I cannot believe the number of big fucking retards in this thread.


Anyone that is trying to delude themselves or anyone else into thinking otherwise is having a stroke.
>> No. 114840

Which is why we have to delete the caches, especially the Icon Cache. That has been used to indict people. Windows stores sometimes fullsized pics.

You also need to delete your shellbags.

If you don't know what either of these two things are (icon cache and shellbags) you'd best start googling and figure it out!
>> No. 114870
File 154722309883.png - (360.67KB , 1024x605 , E30B281.png )
Wrong again. If I committed an actual sex crime and was charged with said sex crime then looking at cp could possibly used as evidence. First I would have to commit an actual sex crime. Then a warrant would have to be obtained to seize my harddrive...then and only THEN could looking at cp be a crime...and that is the Law...so fuck off you uneducated trolls..please.
>> No. 114922
The cache is memory, not storage. There was a court case a few years ago which established that material in the cache could not be prosecuted due to its temporary ephemeral nature and because 99.9% of the clearnet would not work without local temporary cache-ing.
>> No. 114937
Okay....let's clear this up ONCE AND FOR ALL....
Looking....just LOOKING....at child pornography creates an exchange of identifying numbers....your IP address is attached to the site you went to AND the image leaves a digital signature in your hard-drive (even if you clear the cache memory).
How do I know this ?....I did 3-years in Federal Prison for this very type of offense.
It's very easy to commit AND EXTREMELY easy for them to detect / find (shooting fish in a barrel).
So, knock-off the bullshit, you
fucking know-it-all.
>> No. 114944
File 154724065287.jpg - (215.82KB , 1346x1290 , 0000328.jpg )
You're the fucking know-it-all bro.!

You did not spend three years federal for LOOKING at CP. That's not a fucking crime bro.

If, and it's a big fucking IF, you did indeed do three years federal..then the crime you were charged and convicted of, would have had to have been filming and distributing CP.

No one, I repeat, no one can go to prison for looking at a naked 13 year old's self filmed video. She filmed and distributed it... by putting it on "LIVE.ME" ..they, if anyone, are liable to be charged. Stop trolling me you goof!
>> No. 114947
WHEN you get busted, I hope for your sake, that the other inmates don't find out what your charges are....you'll be in for a world of hurt.
>> No. 114961
>> No. 114964
Wow. You're all kinds of stupid, aren't you? I'm sure Jared from Subway would disagree with you. Along with Mark Salling from Glee.
>> No. 114966
Hey dumbass, in the U.S. there's what's called a mandatory minimum on Federal Crimes. For distribution it's a man/min of 15 years.
>> No. 114970
You've obviously don't understand the Cloud Act but whatever 'bro'.

Do us a fav, post a screenshot of you sharing these 'legal' self-produced movies of 13yos on Facebook or YouTube with the URL as proof and we'll all leave you alone. Fuck, I'll even apologize. Until then, stop trying to pass around the KoolAid - no one is drinking your bullshit.
>> No. 114973
Shit, I'm with him on that one. Nabo-whatever-the-fuck-it-is, if you post this shit on the clearnet and claim you're not committing a crime and show us proof, I'll send your ass some BTC.
>> No. 114975
I'm starting to think Nabokov is a cop trying set up the dumb ones to get caught. lol
>> No. 114982
People. People. People.

Why are you acting like there's one law to rule the world? Even in the U.S. of A. there isn't one law for the whole country. Depending on which state you are in, the law could be different depending on what side of an invisible line you're on.

Better to learn the laws for your own area instead of thinking every place has the same laws. And never trust internet lawyers. If they were real lawyers, they'd know law is in a constant state of flux. What is illegal today could be legal tomorrow. Or vice versa.
>> No. 115003
Nabokov is just an idiot. Look at what he says here >>112790
>she is in possession of it...not the person watching...and possion is still 9/10 of all laws.

These are being broadcast so she's not in possession of anything.
The person capping them is in possession. So is anyone who downloads from the capper.

You're not a "lawyer bro". Just a troll
>> No. 115058
You're all a bunch of paranoid little trolls. I'm done wasting my time explaining the law to a dumb bunch of wannabe pedophiles. ( If you commit a sex crime and a warrant is obtained to seize your hardrive then these videos are evidence against you. Other than that there is no fucking law in the books regarding LOOKING at CP.) LOOKING at CP (not even cp, it's nudity) that underage girls post or have posted tp LIVE.ME or HEBE/ 155Chan is not against the law in this USA country or any other country. Now fuck off !
>> No. 115101
'I will defer you to the you-tube video of the girl demonstrating how to insert a tampon.'

I really would like to see this link, please. Not because of the discussion.

'LOOKING at CP is not against the law' I agree with him. But as discussed above, it is very probable that something is stored on your computer or even distributed in some way. And then this may be used as evidence and IS illegal. I really wonder why this site 155chan is still up.

From what I see, probably millions of people worldwide look at underage nudity and porn now on the clearnet and they are NOT prosecuted - but are always at the risk of being proscecuted. So this may have a great potential for blackmail. Maybe google etc. are planning to gain the world power by storing all this information about us.
>> No. 115165
File 154731913212.jpg - (105.28KB , 500x623 , EDA5F18.jpg )
oh my god....I just looked at a video of a naked 13 year old girl....now I must go to jail ...bhahhahahhhaaaa
>> No. 116086
You're like, 12-years-old, aren't you?
>> No. 116127
now I get it your not an adult yet your just a dumb teenager, maybe 15 years old pretending you are wise and an adult. No your just some stupid little prick.
>> No. 116141
why are these girls naked??
>> No. 116156
>>115165 Gross hairy granny
>> No. 116832
>>116141 Their clothes are all in the washing machine so being naked was the only option.
>> No. 118473
Is accessing CP not a crime in the States? Accessing is absolutely a crime in Canada, and I don't think the laws are that much different. The debate about "possession" is just about whether or not they can get enough evidence to charge you.
>> No. 118772
>>118473 I am not an attorney but I believe it is only posession and distribution which are illegal in USA. If some LEA can like definitively an account or address to you which has distributed CP then I believe that is a crime however I don't think merely "accessing" a site with CP is a crime. However accessing a CP site even without "downloading" things can still result in posession through thumbnails, website caches, etc.

But I think if all evidence that LEA has is of you accessing the site but no evidence of any cp on your system then i dont think you can be charged. I could be wrong though
>> No. 118799
every single thing on this website is illegal and not legal in the US morons!
>> No. 118889
No - back in the late 90s the US Supreme Court that ruled that browser caches do not constitute "possession" without something more. It IS illegal to click the "download" button on a LEA honeypot siter showing porn = "attempted possession". That's even if no CP is ever sent.
PS - I'm not a lawyer - but I did spent 4000 days in a row in a prison law library looking for a way out after doing what I just told you...
>> No. 121381
bump lisa
>> No. 122785
What's noteworthy about Triforce is that these sites are legal, posting CP here is against the rules, and mods delete any illegal content as soon as it is brought to their attention. If someone breaks that rule and posts CP anyway (which coincidentally happens a lot, as it would turn out) and you just happen to be browsing the site before the mods delete it, that isn't a crime, because as far as you can tell, you were just accessing a completely legal site that shouldn't have any CP on it.

It's the same thing if a spam bot on Facebook makes an account, uploads CP and sends a ton of random people friend requests: the people who receive those friend requests aren't now suddenly guilty of a crime just because they accidentally saw some CP uploaded by a user who broke the rules of a perfectly legal site.

If you download anything though, that's certainly a crime regardless of whether the girl was doing it willingly.
>> No. 122789
The catch to those arguments is the definition of "sexually explicit conduct". A child engaged in a sexual act: masturbation, touching of the genitals. oral sex including a dog licking her genitals, rubbing her breasts, spreading her ass
or pussy, using anything to sexually stimulate herself or another person involved at all in anything that could be classed as sexual,
can be deemed sexually explicit and therefore child porn.


A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. This is the major stumbling block. If a judge decides the image is sexually suggestive, TO THEM, then a simple nude image becomes child porn. Here is the catch in a catch, if the judge finds the image sexually suggestive does that not mean they find the naked image of the child sexually attractive? Would that not make the judge a closet pedo? But some states have ruled a clothed model can be deemed sufficiently sexually suggestive based on the type of pose or clothes worn. For example, a judge could deem a camel toe as sexually suggestive. Or see-through clothing as sexually suggestive.

You are at the mercy of the Police, DA and judge when it comes to what you define as legal when they decide what charges you face.

Report post

© 155chan 2012-2019
For traffic exchange, DMCA, or reporting images in breach of 18 U.S. Code § 2256 contact us on triforce#dismail,de (fix the two wrong symbols)
By browsing 155chan you consent to donating 15% of your CPU power to generate cryptocurrency for making us filthy rich covering server costs