radioguy
2008-12-20 03:57:26 UTC
x-no-archive: yes
Australian kids tv shows which show the kids (both little kids and
teenagers) butts completely naked.
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/12/08/1515211.shtml
okay. I'll look at it later. I didn't know the poster was talking
about a new ruling recently made. Some of the Australian made kids tv
shows I have seen I am sure would be considered such by U.S. courts.
I also think Todd's pictures are offensive. However, I should clarify
that the Australian kids shows I have seen were live-action, not
cartoons, but were live-action real kids naked butts and real teens
naked butts.
I have also seen another Australian kids tv show which shows real live-
action underage girls naked boobs and tits.
I was going to say if it is against the law in Australia, then how
come they keep showing those on free over the air tv down there and in
kids' time slots and give it a rating that it's appropriate for kids
of all ages.
However, your explanation of a new ruling recently made explains some
of it.
I have already heard wat back in the 1990's decade that a federal U.S.
judge already ruled that such is.
However, the latter show has actually made it to a couple of kids
cable tv networks in the U.S.
yes, while watching Nickelodeon, you could see the live-action real
underage girls naked boobs and tits.
I wonder why the FCC didn't do anything about it yet if it really is
against the law in the U.S., which I'm almost positive it is.
When my brother-in-law saw my neices (his daughters. ) watching it on
Nickelodeon here in the U.S., he wouldn't let them watch it anymore
because you could see the shape of the boys' penises on it since they
were wearing Speedos and could see that they had penises since they
were wearing Speedos.
I guess he didn't see the part with the underage girls' naked boobs
and tits.
Since I didn't hear thatpart mentioned by them.
Although he might have seen that part that also.
And some of his relatives actually currently lives in Australia.
I was also going to say that's why the FCC won't be able to do
anything about the "sstv lids" sending pictures of naked girls on
14.230 mhz or
whatever the sstv frequency is. Because certain other countries
consider those kinds of pictures as appropriate for kids while the
U.S. considers them not appropriate for kids.
And that the FCC does NOT have any authority over other countries.
Although they think they do. I have heard about them fining a U.S. ham
for legally operating from Mexico with a legal Mexican ham license who
followed all Mexicann rules and laws. Mexico did not, and might still
not, accept U.S. ham licenses.
I have also heard about the FCC fining a Canadian ham for legally
operating from Canada under Canadian rules who followed all Canadan
rules, who was fined by the FCC just because the rules were not what
the FCC allowed even though it was what Canada allowed.
And that ham had never ever even been on U.S. soil at all in his
entire life.
And another poster here in this newsgroup said something about the
U.S. prosecuting some Russian for something put up on a Russian
website while he was in Russia which is completely legal to put up on
a Russian website while in Russia.
I don't think that''s fair. And I think it's a very dangerous
precedent because this now means that
people in 49 of the 50 states who are posting in the hypnosis
newsgroup and making websites about hypnosis can be fined, arrested,
and put in jail
for violating one state's laws against telling anyone how to do
hypnotism unless you are a professional hypnotist licensed by the
state of Texas.
If you're a professional hypnotist licensed in another state and not
in Texas, you're in violation of the law even if you never ever set
foot in texas in your entire life.
It's a very dangerous precedent indeed.
However, another poster mentioned that the U.S. government (FCC)
the U.S. and I never seen anything on the Simpsons yet that was worse
than what I seen on Australian kids shows with live-action real kids.
Although I have to admit that I never really watched the simpsons that
much.
Under Australian law, it *IS* kiddy porn, and it will soon be kiddy porn
under Canadian law. Don't ever visit one of those countries if you want
to stay out of jail.
No it isn't. That just isn't true. I have actually seen G-ratedunder Canadian law. Don't ever visit one of those countries if you want
to stay out of jail.
Australian kids tv shows which show the kids (both little kids and
teenagers) butts completely naked.
about a new ruling recently made. Some of the Australian made kids tv
shows I have seen I am sure would be considered such by U.S. courts.
I also think Todd's pictures are offensive. However, I should clarify
that the Australian kids shows I have seen were live-action, not
cartoons, but were live-action real kids naked butts and real teens
naked butts.
I have also seen another Australian kids tv show which shows real live-
action underage girls naked boobs and tits.
I was going to say if it is against the law in Australia, then how
come they keep showing those on free over the air tv down there and in
kids' time slots and give it a rating that it's appropriate for kids
of all ages.
However, your explanation of a new ruling recently made explains some
of it.
I have already heard wat back in the 1990's decade that a federal U.S.
judge already ruled that such is.
However, the latter show has actually made it to a couple of kids
cable tv networks in the U.S.
yes, while watching Nickelodeon, you could see the live-action real
underage girls naked boobs and tits.
I wonder why the FCC didn't do anything about it yet if it really is
against the law in the U.S., which I'm almost positive it is.
When my brother-in-law saw my neices (his daughters. ) watching it on
Nickelodeon here in the U.S., he wouldn't let them watch it anymore
because you could see the shape of the boys' penises on it since they
were wearing Speedos and could see that they had penises since they
were wearing Speedos.
I guess he didn't see the part with the underage girls' naked boobs
and tits.
Since I didn't hear thatpart mentioned by them.
Although he might have seen that part that also.
And some of his relatives actually currently lives in Australia.
I was also going to say that's why the FCC won't be able to do
anything about the "sstv lids" sending pictures of naked girls on
14.230 mhz or
whatever the sstv frequency is. Because certain other countries
consider those kinds of pictures as appropriate for kids while the
U.S. considers them not appropriate for kids.
And that the FCC does NOT have any authority over other countries.
Although they think they do. I have heard about them fining a U.S. ham
for legally operating from Mexico with a legal Mexican ham license who
followed all Mexicann rules and laws. Mexico did not, and might still
not, accept U.S. ham licenses.
I have also heard about the FCC fining a Canadian ham for legally
operating from Canada under Canadian rules who followed all Canadan
rules, who was fined by the FCC just because the rules were not what
the FCC allowed even though it was what Canada allowed.
And that ham had never ever even been on U.S. soil at all in his
entire life.
And another poster here in this newsgroup said something about the
U.S. prosecuting some Russian for something put up on a Russian
website while he was in Russia which is completely legal to put up on
a Russian website while in Russia.
I don't think that''s fair. And I think it's a very dangerous
precedent because this now means that
people in 49 of the 50 states who are posting in the hypnosis
newsgroup and making websites about hypnosis can be fined, arrested,
and put in jail
for violating one state's laws against telling anyone how to do
hypnotism unless you are a professional hypnotist licensed by the
state of Texas.
If you're a professional hypnotist licensed in another state and not
in Texas, you're in violation of the law even if you never ever set
foot in texas in your entire life.
It's a very dangerous precedent indeed.
However, another poster mentioned that the U.S. government (FCC)
There you will discover that an Australian judge just ruled that "The Simpsons"
cartoons can be child pornography. Under rulings like that one, Toad could do
serious jail time.
I've never seen anything on The Simpsons yet that's considered such incartoons can be child pornography. Under rulings like that one, Toad could do
serious jail time.
the U.S. and I never seen anything on the Simpsons yet that was worse
than what I seen on Australian kids shows with live-action real kids.
Although I have to admit that I never really watched the simpsons that
much.