In article , bizby40 says...


"sha68" wrote in message
oups.com...
I do have one comment for the author of the original tread... my
first
thoughts on seeing your post was oh a sensible conversation for this
day and age, but after having a look at your blogsite i was thinking
what is a grown man doing looking for pictures of children all over
the
net and posting them. You should bare in mind that rightly or
wrongly
the parents of those children have allowed them to be taken and
placed
within the catalogues but they have not given you permission to use
them, which is a violation in its self. Although you would be
horrified
i am sure you must see that to a peodphile this is porn laid out for
him without the risk of police involvement, don't make it easier for
the perverts to get stimulis. I suggest you remove them and fight
your
battle with words after all the pen is mightier than the sword.

The world does need more people fighting to protect our children but
we
must be sure of the purety of the methods used.

I think I'm going to have to speak up for the OP. I followed her
link, not knowing what I might find, and what I found are mainly
mainstream clothing ads for kids. Though there are some that are a
bit provocative, the majority are not. And the ones that are
provocative are generally less so than the Brooke Shields "Can you
believe I'm only 10?" ads of many years ago.

I don't know the legality of reposting the pictures -- I thought it
was okay if you weren't reproducing them for commercial purposes.
Think of Leno and his "headlines" or Consumer Reports "Selling it".
It might be that she needs to reference the original ad in some way?

She has rearranged the pictures since the original post; the one with a female
young teen or preteen with an open shirt and posing a bit provacatively used to
be on the top, with the more provacative ones near the top.




But I do think that making her point without the pictures would be
difficult. People reading this thread without following the link have
focused on "inappropriate" clothing, particularly sexually
inappropriate. It is clear from the pictures that she is referring to
even perfectly conservative adult clothing. One picture that struck
me was of a little boy of maybe 4, wearing a sport coat. The way he
was posed, it looked like he was in the middle of a business deal.

As for pedophiles -- well, there are pictures of kids all over the
net. They can get the same thrill by going to the JC Penney website
if that's what they want. I just don't see that her much less well
known website is going to do anything at all to encourage pedophilia
or give anyone their jollies.


Well, yeah, but not all compiled with talk on Usenet making it easy for search
engines to boot.

At this point, I do think she's on the up and up. She does need to formulate
her objections better, and take more care with her presentation.

Banty


--