Why are they called Rhinos?

I've never checked.

republican in name only

the uniparty people pretending to be republicans

if moderate politicians dont keep conservative islam in check... there may well be a politician who wants something akin to a second crusade in power

Muslims are oppressed #ElectMuslims

^totally gonna take your word for it

what the fuck is wrong with the current state of universities

don't take my word for it, look in it yourself

pornography and art such as nude photography have nothing in common

this is true

pornography is art change my mind

except these weren't "babies playing in the bathtub" nudity

this is a 12 year old boy in very sexual poses nudity

ok

they're poses based off of a collection of artwork a guy made to document an affair he had

<http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/cases/knox/94a0734p.htm>

they're based off of someone's porn

so tims discord has child porn on it now? ... thx....

`The tapes contained numerous vignettes of teenage and preteen females, between the ages of ten and seventeen, striking provocative poses for the camera. The children were obviously being directed by someone off-camera. All of the children wore bikini bathing suits, leotards, underwear, or other abbreviated attire while they were being filmed. The government conceded that no child in the films was nude, and that the genitalia and pubic areas of the young girls were always concealed by an abbreviated article of clothing. The photographer would zoom in on the children's pubic and genital area and display a close-up view for an extended period of time. Most of the videotapes were set to music. In some sequences, the child subjects were dancing or gyrating in a fashion not natural for their age. The films themselves and the promotional brochures distributed by Nather demonstrate that the videotapes clearly were designed to pander to pedophiles.

The United States prosecuted Knox based exclusively on the three Nather tapes. Knox was indicted on two counts: (1) knowingly receiving through the mail visual depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct; and (2) knowingly possessing three or more videotapes that contain a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (4). "Sexually explicit conduct" for both of these offenses is defined to include a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area." Id. §2256(2)(E).`

Don't post that shit anywhere. Clothed or not it's still illegal.

don't thank me, thank my school

for saying it's okay because it's art

Report your prof to the feds.

Let them handle it.

what about the artist

"Artist"

Fuck him too.

well I want them stopped

it's a "queer female" for the record

make of that what you will

Well. Thats just what females do

I wanted to ask "if an old guy did this in his basement, would it be art"

because you know damn well that the answer is no

if anyone wants to see the "Art," message me

I deleted it

the artist is "Collier schorr"

look up "collier schorr helga series"

google approved child porn