When 4chan

MaliA · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 13:35

Children's faces photochopped onto porn.

Quote:

The 18-year-old was held on suspicion of possessing and publishing pseudo-indecent photographs and bailed.

megaLULZ.

And hello to the sex offender's register?

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Yep, he'lll be on the paedo list now. The fucking moron.

Kern · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 14:13

Well, that's his life bugggered then, even it was just a joke.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

However -

"Head teacher David Snashall said "appropriate support" was being provided to those affected. "

THEY'RE MADE UP PICTURES. NOONE HAS BEEN AFFECTED

Dimrill · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 14:16

Sorry, but I've yet to see a joke on 4chan. So it couldn't have been.

MaliA · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 14:26

Mr Chris wrote:

Yep, he'lll be on the paedo list now. The fucking moron.

I've just been trying to work out what is a photograph, and apparently:

"The main photograph is of a girl aged perhaps 10 in a gymnastic outfit standing with her arms upstretched facing the camera. The second photograph, a small piece plainly cut from a larger photograph, is of the naked abdomen, genital area and upper thighs of a girl or young woman. A corner of the second photograph has been affixed to the main photograph by Sellotape so that, as if on a hinge, it can either be turned away from the clothed girl or superimposed over the lower section of the girl's outfit"

Isn't,

But if you folded it over, and photocopied it, it might be.

MaliA · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 14:30

Dimrill wrote:

Sorry, but I've yet to see a joke on 4chan. So it couldn't have been.

I've altered the thread title to prevent causing hurt to the feelings of the child porn, hentai, childish 14-22 year olds that inhabit that realm.

MaliA · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 14:42

Mr Chris wrote:

However -

"Head teacher David Snashall said "appropriate support" was being provided to those affected. "

THEY'RE MADE UP PICTURES. NOONE HAS BEEN AFFECTED

Quote:

It was said by Mr. MuLcahy, and rightly, that one way of expressing the test of indecency or obscenity which are at either end of the scale common to both, was that a matter is obscene if it is one that offends against recognised standards of propriety, and it may be that the same test applies to a matter alleged to be indecent, bearing in mind, as the courts have said, that those are different concepts, different steps on the scale of impropriety, obscenity being the graver of the two. He said, and again rightly, that the standards of propriety vary from age to age, and that it was therefore open to an accused person, or possibly the prosecution, to provide evidence to assist the jury in ascertaining what are the current standards which they have to apply.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Yes, but whether or not the images were obscene doesn't change the fact noone was affected.

MaliA · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 15:15

Mr Chris wrote:

Yes, but whether or not the images were obscene doesn't change the fact noone was affected.

indeed, I was being a fool, and typing into the wrong box.

Dimrill · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 15:32

Is anyone else reminded of when Cartman took a photo of himself with Butter's dick in his mouth?

MaliA · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 15:32

Dimrill wrote:

Is anyone else reminded of when Cartman took a photo of himself with Butter's dick in his mouth?

Or that bit in teh brass Eye special, in the gallery?

KovacsC · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 16:18

Mr Chris wrote:

Yes, but whether or not the images were obscene doesn't change the fact noone was affected.

Wern't they pictures of pupils?

The Rev Owen · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 16:19

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Kovacs Caprios wrote:

Mr Chris wrote:

Yes, but whether or not the images were obscene doesn't change the fact noone was affected.

Wern't they pictures of pupils?

Yes, and?

How exactly is a person affected by having a photo of their face photoshopped onto some porn? Please explain with diagrams.

Dimrill · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 16:22

Well at the moment, the furore has made it hit the BBC news website. That's quite affecting.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Dimrill wrote:

Well at the moment, the furore has made it hit the BBC news website. That's quite affecting.

Is it? Did the BBC put up the photos with names and addresses?

Dimrill · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 16:26

Yep. They'll even post you free hand lubricant. I think might be a sting operation though.

KovacsC · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 16:30

Mr Chris wrote:

Kovacs Caprios wrote:

Mr Chris wrote:

Yes, but whether or not the images were obscene doesn't change the fact noone was affected.

Wern't they pictures of pupils?

Yes, and?

How exactly is a person affected by having a photo of their face photoshopped onto some porn? Please explain with diagrams.

Maybe not affecting in a detrimental way but maybe offended ... so ergo affected.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49252

The kids wouldn't be able to look at it - they're not old enough.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Kovacs Caprios wrote:

Mr Chris wrote:

Kovacs Caprios wrote:

Mr Chris wrote:

Yes, but whether or not the images were obscene doesn't change the fact noone was affected.

Wern't they pictures of pupils?

Yes, and?

How exactly is a person affected by having a photo of their face photoshopped onto some porn? Please explain with diagrams.

Maybe not affecting in a detrimental way but maybe offended ... so ergo affected.

Only if someone showed them it, though.

KovacsC · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 16:37

Fair enough...

Dimrill · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 16:41

No no no. You've got this foruming thing wrong Kov. You're supposed to argue and argue in circles getting increasingly "irate" about it. See my zombie discussion in the "playing online now" thread for pointers.

KovacsC · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 16:46

Dimrill wrote:

No no no. You've got this foruming thing wrong Kov. You're supposed to argue and argue in circles getting increasingly "irate" about it. See my zombie discussion in the "playing online now" thread for pointers.

I do see the Plolice Brutality Thread

Mr Dave · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 17:04

Mr Chris wrote:

Kovacs Caprios wrote:

Mr Chris wrote:

Yes, but whether or not the images were obscene doesn't change the fact noone was affected.

Wern't they pictures of pupils?

Yes, and?

How exactly is a person affected by having a photo of their face photoshopped onto some porn? Please explain with diagrams.

I don't know, let's find out.

Dimrill, how are you affected?

Dimrill · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 17:06

I am mortified beyond belief.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 17:08

Would

Dimrill · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 17:09

Whos face have you used on my body?

Mr Dave · **Posted:** Fri May 01, 2009 17:23

Oh, just some goon I found on the internet.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49252

I'm affected in my pants.

devilman · **Posted:** Thu May 21, 2009 19:58

4chan strikes again

Dimrill · **Posted:** Thu May 21, 2009 20:05

Bunch of wankers.

The Rev Owen · **Posted:** Thu May 21, 2009 20:06

Idiots, the lot of them.

GovernmentYard · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 5318

Oh, good idea lads, let's slag them off until they pwn us, shall we?

Frankly I'd sooner 'the kids' were watching a couple of people have a nice fuck than the Jonas Bros and all that damaging bullshit.

Dimrill · **Posted:** Thu May 21, 2009 22:13

These children are too busy pwning THA MAN at Youtube and... wherever the fuck the other child came from.

grumpysmurf · **Joined:** 6th Nov, 2008 **Posts:** 298

Instead of endlessly debating whether something is obscene in court, why don't they just do an Internet poll on a case-by-case basis? No really. It's the perfect way to get a definitive answer from a cross-section of society. If more than 70% of respondents think it's obscene, it's probably obscene.

Kern · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 9:05

It's not particuarly funny, either.

Splicing in single frames would be, but is somewhat unoriginal.

devilman · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 9:08

GovernmentYard wrote:

Oh, good idea lads, let's slag them off until they pwn us, shall we?

I imagine that if you googled for sites slagging off 4chan, there'd be a fair few results to trawl through till you reach small fry like us.

Malabelm · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 10:10

devilman wrote:

GovernmentYard wrote:

Oh, good idea lads, let's slag them off until they pwn us, shall we?

I imagine that if you googled for sites slagging off 4chan, there'd be a fair few results to trawl through till you reach small fry like us.

Until Grim... gets more money for adverts, anyway!

Grim... · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 10:16

Actually, I got an email this morning to say that the advertising kitty was empty. It doesn't appear to have worked massively well though, does it?

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Kern wrote:

It's not particuarly funny, either.

Splicing in single frames would be, but is somewhat unoriginal.

A bar that Craster and I and our peers frequented during sixth form had tellyboxes on which played music videos, but at random points cut to a few seconds of hardcore pron. Awesome stuff.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49252

Grim... wrote:

Actually, I got an email this morning to say that the advertising kitty was empty. It doesn't appear to have worked massively well though, does it?

Mmm - possibly not. Anyone with an account on here willing to admit they turned up because of a google ad and then couldn't find the way out?

Dimrill · **Posted:** Fri May 22, 2009 18:49

Hey! SHall we all start trolling on 4chan and post hardcore porn interspersed with insurance adverts? LOL! IS SO FUNNY JA!

GovernmentYard · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 5318

Yes, we should.

Grumpysmurf - that's a good idea. We could also let people do a few lines about why they hold their opinion, the better to progress the debate. A popular site like the BBC News site could be a good platform for this, and it needs a snappy title, which echoes the democratic principles upon which the idea is based. How about "Have Your Say"?

Be Excellent To Each Other

When 4chan
fucks up?

Who is online

Be Excellent To Each Other

When 4chan fucks up?

Who is online

When 4chan
fucks up?