i started this entire convo mentioning how it gets people talking about it

and look what happened lol

and i for one think the conversation needs to happen

no matter how toxic it may get

Yeah... Honestly I don't see any merit in making sexually-charged images of underage girls if they are real people. It's just creepy because the artist is deliberately pandering to pedophiles and other underaged kids. Which I do find deeply disturbing.

I do have to say, if a link can be proven in court between a real life kid and the porn in question, you may not be protected from child pornography charges.

I don't agree with the scope of Trini's argument, however Shad has trod on thin ice on this one if we want to speak legally.

I also think going after Keemstar's kid is too far removed from the meme himself to get that protection. It's movie star kid syndrome, and we shouldn't put that on some famous person's kid so they can at least have a chance at a normal childhood.

Shadman panders to more than just "pedophiles" (I say in quotes because that term has a very set definition and i hate people watering it down by calling anybody they find "creepy" that). You may find it disturbing as that is your right, but shadman also has his right to draw whatever as long as he doesn't actually use kids as models or some shit like that. There was a legal precedent set regarding this but I cant find it atm.

Has Shadman tread on thin ice? Yes, I agree. That's his gimmick at the end of the day. As for putting it on Keems daughter, until I see it ACTUALLY ruin her life I am not going to get the pitchforks out over my moral qualms.

@Deleted User I'd be less concerned over the moral aspects, and far more about the legal ones. Honestly, when it comes to porn, I don't get it, and I do take a more no harm no foul approach. (You'd be thinking of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition by the way. I'm familiar with the case and can even get you judge's opinions if you like.) From how you're describing matters though, the courts may rule that he did indeed use her as a model, which is where I step in as someone who studied law in college. To what degree Shad used an underage girl as a model is the issue.

My moral prescriptions in my comment were more general in scope. Keem is the meme, not his daughter basically. This is the unfortunate problem of no harm no foul things, we never know before hand until shit happens.

I see your point. Thanks for the case as well. At that point it does come down to IF this has an effect on his daughter's life and IF he used her as a model in the eyes of the law. I was also half responding to Daddy in my last comment, the moral arguement was more directed at him.

I don't mind. That is THE case after all. Unfortunately it's not quite IF he did use her as a model or not, it's IF the court thinks so. If I was Keemstar and found out about it, I'd be talking to a lawyer, and it's not exactly looking good for Shad unless there are companion cases I'm unaware of.

I'm surpised Keemstar doesn't know about it considering the size of his fanbase

Weird indeed.

@Deleted User can you send me some deets on that court case? I think this discussion may be worth a video and I want to start researching now.

wow

Go Fuck Yourself, Fenrir of the Right ! You Cunt.

Yeah, I'm not quite sure what happened with him.

And, I'm not sure if I caused it.

@Dick Daddy Foster Case in question is Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. I kept one of my law textbooks chock full of Supreme Court cases. Decided in 2002 after the passage of the Child Pornography Prevention Act which made it a crime to create, distribute, or possess "virtual child pornography" generated by computer images of young adults instead of actual children. It was challenged by the Free Speech Coalition, a group of artists, photographers, and adult entertainment businesses. Ashcroft was theone prosecuting the case.

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court. Long story short, the CPPA went beyond established bounds in New York v. Ferber, building off of obscenity law established in Miller v. California. Sections 2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) were found to be at fault. Sec. B prohibited "any visual depiction..." that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." This was decided to be overly broad, and unenforceable. Sec D was found to be at fault for similar reasons, being overbroad. Sec. C was not challenged, and is the relevant section if we are discussing Shad here. Sec. C covered what was then called computer morphing, where you'd take an existing pic of a kid and photoshop it to look sexual.

5 decided against Ashcroft, 1 full dissent, 3 partial concurrances, with Scalia deciding partially in favor of the full dissent, part not.

See, but Shadman doesn't morph existing images. He makes his own from scratch usually, so how much Sec C can apply seems to be contentious.

@Deleted User I wouldn't be so sure. The precise reason Sec. C was never challenged by Free Speech Coalition, which the majority opinion confirms, was because actual children were involved in the process of morphing existing pictures. The precedent seems to be that if a kid was involved in the process, it's child porn. Now, we can play with the margins over how one can go about proving things, this is law after all, sometimes there isn't a smoking gun, but, in terms of the letter of the law, if Shad used Keemstar's underage kid as a model and such could be proven in a court of law, there's a very high chance the 1st Amendment doesn't protect his work in this instance. In the interest of providing a synopsis of the case for our Messiah here, I didn't mention that detail.

Note also this is one case and one law. Obscenity law has a surprisingly rich backlog of cases, and both Miller v. California and New York v. Ferber were also referenced. Like I said earlier, at best, Shad walking on cracking ice on this one. In all likelihood, he'd lose if connections to Keemstar's daughter can be drawn, unless one can marshall a counter-case that fits the situation better.

Hmm, so you're saying he might not even need to morph an existing image so long as the likeness of Keemstars duaghter was used?

seems so, yeah

@Deleted User Insofar as she can be proven to be a model. All precedent I'm aware of says that a real kid being involved means child porn, hence why Free Speech Coalition never challenged C. However, this is conditional upon the prosecution, Keemstar in this case, to prove that in court, which leads me to ask you this question.

How did you find out this was the case?

More importantly: Child porn is gay. And being gay is unacceptable.

@Deleted User Find out what was the case exactly?

That Shad used Keemstar's kid as a model, since that sparked this conversation.

I'm trying to establish if Shad outright said this or if this was just rumor or something.

Well I can send you the image in question as it's not sexually explicit. In fact, outside of the girl in the picture have what could be seen as a lewd face the image is not sexual in nature.

He had a slightly more lewd depiction of Lt. Corbis (renamed Lt. Whorebitch)

I only care if the material was pornographic in nature and if Shad had admitted to using Keemstar's daughter as a model. It may or may not pass obscenity law, I can't give a general prescription, but I'm wondering how you drew the conclusion that Keemstar's daughter was the inspiration.

The image depicts Keemstar holding her

although the image is of the kind where there are 3 shots in one

so its one of her being held and 2 of just her

one shot has her standing fully clothed with a possibly lewd face

the other is her eating popcorn and reciting Keemstars "lets get right into the news"

its an obvious parody

mind you the image possibly couldve been her giving head to trump

but shadman seemingly backed down from that

OK then, it looks like he's got innocent until proven guilty working in his favor then. I was thinking he sent out communications or subtitled it saying that or something, which would have been a massive red flag. It sounds like it wasn't going on into clear porn territory, and Shad knew enough to not clearly take it there, so the worst he'll face involves some obscure obscenity law not worth prosecuting.

He may be subject to potential damages later down the line, but that is depending entirely on whether there are damages to speak of.

theres only a disclaimer at the bottom stating the usual all persons depicted are ficticious but im not sure what thats worth