not even a real one of her doing lewd stuff

It only takes ONE pic to ruin someone.

Again. its not actually her

shes not actually fellating mics

shes also very rich thanks to her dad

"It's not her because it's animated but it was totally based off her lol"

she's so much more likely to NOT be ruined by this than most

Uh yeah

its not actually her

its a parody

"It's not her because it's anime therefore it's a parody! lol"

not even my argument but ok

I'm done with this convo. I don't need to talk to pedophiles

out of rebuttals then?

lol pedos

gg

just call the opponent a pedo and claim victory. so logical lol. not an completely emotional response at all

okay like

how is 00 saying that one pic wont ruin that girls future pedophilic?

you _do_ remember the definition right?

idek

but at least you get what im saying even if you may not agree

I dont think what he did was right or anything.

i just think it ruining somebodys life is a strech

yes, i do understand. personally i dont think it was a good choice but theres little you can do after the fact

well ironically

and the future is a big what if that could change on a wimp based on every decision u make

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.