Comments on: destroyer.pdf http://blog.milkboys.org/article/destroyer-pdf/ The Boys Blog Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:46:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Lestat http://blog.milkboys.org/article/destroyer-pdf/comment-page-1/#comment-36630 Lestat Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:54:30 +0000 http://blog.milkboys.org/article/destroyer-pdf/#comment-36630 Exatcly! I hope soon Karl put some other of my pics in the cover ;P Exatcly!

I hope soon Karl put some other of my pics in the cover ;P

]]> By: Josh~ http://blog.milkboys.org/article/destroyer-pdf/comment-page-1/#comment-35894 Josh~ Sun, 19 Jul 2009 06:25:31 +0000 http://blog.milkboys.org/article/destroyer-pdf/#comment-35894 This one? ^^ <img src="http://files.milkboys.org/graphics/d05.jpg"> This one? ^^

]]> By: Lestat http://blog.milkboys.org/article/destroyer-pdf/comment-page-1/#comment-35893 Lestat Sun, 19 Jul 2009 06:21:12 +0000 http://blog.milkboys.org/article/destroyer-pdf/#comment-35893 hehehe its funny 3 of the 4 magazine have photos that i take and one is in the cover XD hehehe its funny 3 of the 4 magazine have photos that i take and one is in the cover XD

]]> By: xenopoesis http://blog.milkboys.org/article/destroyer-pdf/comment-page-1/#comment-35600 xenopoesis Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:42:21 +0000 http://blog.milkboys.org/article/destroyer-pdf/#comment-35600 As Leonidas said "Nudity is not required for a picture to be considered CP" I'm not sure of the exact situation in the US, but in the UK it is definitely true that nudity is NOT required for an image to be considered indecent. It is also true that images WITH nudity are not automatically indecent. In the UK, if an image of a child contains "indecency", the image is an "indecent photograph of a child", and this is an incredibly low standard for CP. I know this to be a 100% accurate description of the state of the law in England because I know of a prosecution for an image that appeared in Destroyer #3, which showed 2 (incredibly cute!) boys wearing only Y-front underwear. Both boys are standing in front of a mirror, and one of them is taking the photograph using a camera that he is looking into, the other boy is looking into the mirror. The image was all over the blogs at one time, and is still available on some blogs... I could include a link, but if I am found guilty in regard to that image, it will mean I would also be guilty of distributing child porn. They boys are apparently emo boys, and a link can be found from Milkboys (which, an English court might conclude, means Milkboys distributes child porn :o) As Leonidas said “Nudity is not required for a picture to be considered CP”

I’m not sure of the exact situation in the US, but in the UK it is definitely true that nudity is NOT required for an image to be considered indecent. It is also true that images WITH nudity are not automatically indecent. In the UK, if an image of a child contains “indecency”, the image is an “indecent photograph of a child”, and this is an incredibly low standard for CP.

I know this to be a 100% accurate description of the state of the law in England because I know of a prosecution for an image that appeared in Destroyer #3, which showed 2 (incredibly cute!) boys wearing only Y-front underwear. Both boys are standing in front of a mirror, and one of them is taking the photograph using a camera that he is looking into, the other boy is looking into the mirror. The image was all over the blogs at one time, and is still available on some blogs… I could include a link, but if I am found guilty in regard to that image, it will mean I would also be guilty of distributing child porn. They boys are apparently emo boys, and a link can be found from Milkboys (which, an English court might conclude, means Milkboys distributes child porn :o)

]]> By: Josh~ http://blog.milkboys.org/article/destroyer-pdf/comment-page-1/#comment-35599 Josh~ Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:33:52 +0000 http://blog.milkboys.org/article/destroyer-pdf/#comment-35599 Oh. Yeah. I guess xD Oh. Yeah. I guess xD

]]> By: xenopoesis http://blog.milkboys.org/article/destroyer-pdf/comment-page-1/#comment-35598 xenopoesis Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:29:59 +0000 http://blog.milkboys.org/article/destroyer-pdf/#comment-35598 The powers that be have decided that "child porn" is too jolly a term to be used for child porn, and have redefined all of it as "child abuse images" or "child exploitation images". They say children (under 18s!) cannot consent to be in porn, so their appearance in it is exploitation. Exploitation can amount to simply being photographed, by the looks of things The powers that be have decided that “child porn” is too jolly a term to be used for child porn, and have redefined all of it as “child abuse images” or “child exploitation images”.

They say children (under 18s!) cannot consent to be in porn, so their appearance in it is exploitation.

Exploitation can amount to simply being photographed, by the looks of things

]]> By: Jake http://blog.milkboys.org/article/destroyer-pdf/comment-page-1/#comment-35596 Jake Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:07:30 +0000 http://blog.milkboys.org/article/destroyer-pdf/#comment-35596 Here they call pictures of underage teens or kids in speedos "Child Exploitation Material" and its just as bad as CP Here they call pictures of underage teens or kids in speedos “Child Exploitation Material” and its just as bad as CP

]]> By: xenopoesis http://blog.milkboys.org/article/destroyer-pdf/comment-page-1/#comment-35593 xenopoesis Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:19:15 +0000 http://blog.milkboys.org/article/destroyer-pdf/#comment-35593 Maybe Kritzan is taking "XY" as a variable name rather than the real name of XY magazine? (XY is nowhere near as good as Destroyer!) Maybe Kritzan is taking “XY” as a variable name rather than the real name of XY magazine? (XY is nowhere near as good as Destroyer!)

]]> By: Josh~ http://blog.milkboys.org/article/destroyer-pdf/comment-page-1/#comment-35592 Josh~ Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:59:40 +0000 http://blog.milkboys.org/article/destroyer-pdf/#comment-35592 What are you talking about? oO There were no comments removed. What are you talking about? oO There were no comments removed.

]]> By: Kritzan http://blog.milkboys.org/article/destroyer-pdf/comment-page-1/#comment-35589 Kritzan Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:45:44 +0000 http://blog.milkboys.org/article/destroyer-pdf/#comment-35589 How come different posters are talking about a "XY" magazine. Is there censorship already on milkboys or is it a protection for advertising clients? How come different posters are talking about a “XY” magazine. Is there censorship already on milkboys or is it a protection for advertising clients?

]]>