The other day, someone posted a story about Playboy promoting pedophilia in a 1978 issue on GAW. In addition to that, the post had sketches of underground tunnels coming from the Playboy Mansion.
I showed my red-pilled wife the story which caused her to turn into an internet autist thoroughly researching the topic during which she came upon an interesting story that I'd never heard before.
In 1975, 10-year-old Brooke Shields, with the permission of her mother, was photographed totally nude, with make-up, and oiled up. A Playboy publication called "Sugar 'n Spice" published the photos. A total jaw-dropper even to us senior-level red-pilled folks.
To further the red pills, in the 1980s, Brooke tried to stop the further usage of the pictures, but a judge ruled that she was bound by the contract her mom signed, and the pictures weren't child pornography. They were even used in a museum or two.
Here's a link to the Wikipedia article about the controversy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Gross
I thought this was a great way to show normies how this stuff is promoted and protected at the upper echelons of society.
If you get a normie red-pilled with this, you can lead into how the judges, political leaders, etc are all compromised. How else could a judge rule that something that's literally child porn, is NOT child porn?
The choice is YOURS to know.
How does a judge rule this? I’ll answer this question.
For a nude photograph to be considered pornography it has to be for “the prurient interest” meaning it is intended to be sexually arousing. This is why pictures of children National Geographic arent child porn. Sure any pedo could find any nude pic of a child arousing to them but the photo itself has to be obviously meant to be overtly sexual and arousing in nature. I think you can debate whether Brooke Shields photos fall into that definition or not, but just thought i give you the rationale behind how something is looked at as porn or not under the law.
The judge didn't see a 10 year old with make-up, full frontal nudity, and all oiled up as child porn. That's not a tribal girl going about her normal every day business...Knowing what we know, NO excuse for this judge. Not to mention a Playboy publication published the photos. The very definition of Playboy is...arousal....
It was in a porno mag dude
she was oiled up and wearing makeup
don’t be daft
Like i said just pointing out the legal reasoning behind the decision which doesn't always match the morality of it. Im not defending it just explaining how the standards for pornography are seen in the eyes of the law. I recommend reading the case, as its interesting either way, but im a law nerd
An underage girl
in a pornography magazine
oiled up
in makeup
full frontal nudity
If the legal interpretation of that is not pornography, then the legal opinion is a lie, torturing the truth in order to call a lie the truth.
Sorry man, but that judge is a pedophile. The law sees it as pornography. The judge in the specific case was corrupt.
Again. Im not disagreeing. But the law is not the same standard as the public standard. Never has been. Read the case, even if you disagree with the rationale youll learn something