What about even the "family-friendly" sites such as YouTube, which sometimes shows minors working out and flexing their muscles (with shirts fully off), etc.? Until I learn otherwise, I find myself wondering whether even stuff like that is questionable...or worse.
That stuff is legal. Current US law basically states it has to be sexual in nature. “Minors working out and flexing their muscles (with shirts fully off), etc.” should be considered legal. I used “should” for a reason, I will get to that in a second. In fact they could be fully nude and it would still be legal. Now if someone else was touching their genitals it would become CP. If they kept touching themselves it would be CP. If they were just doing everyday living scenarios it is legal.
The one thing almost every country in the world (except Muslim and highly other religious countries) have in common is naturalist laws. Anyone can be a naturalist including children. On top of that “art” is also legal. Putting this all together it is why some of Robert Mapplethorpe’s works are illegal, but Sally Mann’s is not. Mapplethorpe’s work was seen more as sexual than art. Mann’s work is seen as naturalist art. Both artists took pictures of under aged persons.
Now getting back to “should”. If you have paid attention to my rants on the subject you will find I complain a lot about DA’s. As I have said many times before DA’s have the option of what they want to take to court. If someone is taken to court for CP (whether they knew they had it or not) but they were also into a naturalist lifestyle and/or nude art with children etcetera it will more than likely be used against them. Also if only one illegal piece is found (whether they knew they had it or not) but the person arrested had a “large” collection of legal porn, it would also more than likely be used against them.
The above is because most laypeople and those with “hard biases” don’t know, understand, or care about full facts on sexuality. They take what helps their biases and run with it. Their thinking is usually “if it’s nude, it’s sexual” or “if they have a lot of porn they must be a fiend or into everything, including illegal stuff.
In defense of DA’s this is where “situational” marketing came into play as I wrote in post 11. My personal issue with this is they almost never take into account that this is not 100% how it will always play out. Their spin is “they have A and B so it must equal C” when some of the time it is “D”. Too many people are okay with sending innocent people to prison as long as it doesn’t affect them. US sex laws need to be reworked. The People are too complacent and our politicians are too dirty taking bribes (lobbying money) or trying to keep their jobs to do the right thing.
That's a virus/trojan. You shouldn't get it if you use antivirus software.
Antivirus software is a game of keep up. The companies will not know what to protect their customers from. One has to know about the virus and what it does/how it works, etc. For the “better” viruses it can take months for an antivirus software company to update their programs to deal with them. By then some viruses can evolve themselves so they are not affected. Also newer viruses can take their place or the virus itself can be programmed not to be removed, but tell you it has been.
Also keep in mind antivirus software removes the viruses and other things seen as bad. Illegal pictures etc. may or may not be seen as something that needs to be removed, so even if you do remove the virus the illegal stuff could still be there. Unless you are good with computers, you take a huge risk taking your computer to someone to get that stuffed removed.
