-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

Name
Email
Subject   (new thread)
Message
File
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 500x500 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 520 unique user posts. View catalog
  • Post screening is enabled. All posts and replies must be approved by staff before appearing on this board.

Teenlist Top

chan issues
File 151290556952.png - (3.85KB , 225x225 , colors.png )
66 No. 66 hide watch quickreply [Reply]
Does the contrast between calm blue as a background for the first post of each thread and bright cyan (replies background) cause your eyes any strain when scrolling?
>> No. 128
These colors look good.
>> No. 190
Blue light is a spectrum of light that's most harmful, try Yellow, it's the same tint used by high-end gaming shades


File 151526215693.jpg - (20.95KB , 400x400 , middle_finger_salute_retro_postcard-rb9b4162638de4.jpg )
164 No. 164 hide watch quickreply [Reply]
Whats up with the horrible music I keep hearing? Can you please get rid if it?
>> No. 165
File 151527802580.jpg - (2.60KB , 125x116 , myhat.jpg )
165
New ad network. Just kicked them out and sent them a warning, sorry.


File 151492441542.jpg - (130.81KB , 1920x1080 , 180 blocked.jpg )
132 No. 132 hide watch quickreply [Reply]
just tried to load 180/mir, got this screen

WW
>> No. 133
File 151492477482.jpg - (2.60KB , 125x116 , myhat.jpg )
133
IWF huh? 180 has apparently been blocked in the UK then. My only advice is to use a VPN or tor https://torproject.org to access it. Else feel free to continue posting on 144 or 155.

I don't know whether to be happy or sad. It's obviously bad that one chan has been cut off many of our visitors but it also means we're having an impact. We're bothering the Jews powerful so much that when they failed to silence us they're resorting to ugly censorship.

If that extends to 144/155 we'll just register new names and convert the databases like last time. Won't take 1 hour.
>> No. 134
File 151493326264.jpg - (2.60KB , 125x116 , myhat.jpg )
134
The archaic commies at the IWF supposedly have a complaint form to get delisted from the child porn list at https://report.iwf.org.uk/en/process-complaint but it keeps asking for an invisible captcha. That was confirmed by another mod.

I have a neat 500-word message ready to get us delisted. If anyone would like to submit it on our behalf please email me. Better use VPN or Tor though, but before anything test if you can see their imaginary captcha in your browser.

It'd be funny if they intentionally disabled the captcha so nobody can submit a removal petition.
>> No. 135
There's no way you're gonna get delisted.

Remember that the definition of Child Abuse Material is pretty different from what us chanusers think it is.

Check Coroners and Justice Act of 2009 in UK, Interpol Terminology Guidelines or work related to the Lanzarote convention.

IT'S IMPORTANT FOR HER MAJESTY'S SUBJECTS TO NOT STUMBLE UPON CONTENT DEEMED BY HER LORDS AS INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE SERFS (all while the lords continue having loli orgies)

>> No. 136
>>135
That's Newspeak to me. Sadly, Big Brother and its NWO is coming...

(and to those "child advocates" and their masters) NOTHING LASTS FOREVER!


File 151441292168.gif - (13.15KB , 122x85 , 100legal.gif )
85 No. 85 hide watch quickreply [Reply]
>Proudly compliant with 18 U.S. Code § 2256

United States v. Grimes, 244 F.3d 375, 380–82 (5th Cir. 2001) (holding that images of naked children with their genitals pixilated can amount to child pornography)

United States v. Price, 775 F.3d 828, 837–38 n.7 (7th Cir. 2014) (rejecting the argument that a lascivious exhibition of the genitals requires “full exposure without any covering at all, no matter how minimal or transparent”)

United States v. Wallenfang 568 F.3d 649, 659 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding that lascivious exhibitions of girls clad in pantyhose constitutes child pornography)

United States v. Helton 302 Fed. Appx. 842, 846–47 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (holding that a lascivious exhibition of an eleven year-old girl wearing underwear constitutes child pornography).

DiGiusto v. Farwell, 291 Fed. Appx. 119 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating that it was reasonable for a jury to conclude that pictures of “scantily clad boys” constitute child pornography)

United States v. Frabizio, 459 F.3d 80, 88 (1st Cir. 2006) (stating that “other circuitshave found that nudity is not required for a lascivious exhibition”)

United States v.Williams, 444 F.3d 1286, 1299 n.63 (11th Cir. 2006), rev’d on other grounds, 553 U.S. 285 (stating that nudity is not required in other circuits)
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.


Report post
Reason  
[0] [1] [2] [3] [4] Next


© 155chan 2012-2018
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 20% of your CPU power to generate cryptocurrency for making us filthy rich covering server costs