is Fox News linked to producers of child pornography ?

[ScubaGuy]

Now this DUmmie is really reaching on this one.

DUmmie logic

Swagman  Donating Member  (726 posts) Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Wed Jun-03-09 01:48 PM
Original message
is Fox News linked to producers of child pornography ?
   
Edited on Wed Jun-03-09 02:02 PM by Swagman
researching an article on the British media I stumbled across some startling facts about a English model called Samantha Fox.

from Wikpedia :
Samantha Karen "Sam" Fox (born 15 April 1966 in Mile End, London)

"Fox had her pictures published, and was soon after invited for a test shoot for The Sun newspaper's Page Three feature. Her parents gave their consent for their daughter to pose topless, and on Tuesday, 22 February 1983, Fox's first Page Three photograph was published under the headline "Sam, 16, Quits A-Levels for Ooh-Levels."

Anyone familiar with The Sun newspaper (owner Rupert Murdoch) will know the Page 3 girls were provocatively and deliberately sexually posed to "titilate" readers. Although the conservative Murdoch was furious at first-when sales of The Sun soared the Page 3 girl became a permanent feature..many were 16, a few were 15..always topless.

further from Wikpedia :
"Controversy over these young models ended when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 raised the minimum age for topless modelling to 18."

Young American teens under the age of 18 today are being arrested for "sexting" each other topless photos of themselves, with threats of prosecution for producing child pornography and the further threat of a lifetime's registration as a 'sex offender'

The Sun was Murdoch's first foray into British publishing and from there he launched his bids into the USA and elsewhere to build a world-wide media empire.

A conundrum arises:
would a person be arrested today and charged with possession of child pornography if they had sexually provocative photographs of nude teens under aged 18 despite them being produced before 2003 ?. I believe they would be.

On laws that exist today-Rupert Murdoch ruled over an empire that profited on the production and distribution of child pornography in the UK. He is an American citizen. A US citizen can be arrested if they are involved in sex based crimes abroad. Although laws generally preclude a person being charged with something that was not a crime before a law is enacted to make it a crime...most sexual abuse laws appear to have no time limit on them no matter when they were enacted.

Where is a Yale Law Professor when you need one ?

brendan120678  Donating Member  (281 posts)  Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Wed Jun-03-09 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why did you choose to single out Fox News?
   
I realize that they are repugnant, but News Corp has over 100 subsidiaries.

You could have titled your post, "is HarperCollins linked to producers of child pornography?"
"is the New York Post linked to producers of child pornography?"
"is the Wall Street Journal linked to producers of child pornography?"
"is MySpace linked to producers of child pornography?"
"is Photobucket linked to producers of child pornography?"
"are the Colorado Rockies linked to producers of child pornography?"
"is BlueSky Studios linked to producers of child pornography?"
"is the National Geographic Channel linked to producers of child pornography?"

And no, I don't think that he can be held accountable today for the publishing of those photos in the past.

So a London newspaper prints what were at the time legal picture of a 16 year old girl in 1983 and Fox News is guilty? 

By that logic any current enterprise remotely associated with the Kennedy family is guilty of moon shining too.

I was working in England at that time and London Weekend TV (channel 4) ran a half hour special that contained nothing but naked interviews with her.  I guess the British Government and Queen Elisabeth are guilty too.

[BadCat]

I thought that the Brits allowed young women as young as 16 to display their wares?

Kiera Knightley in the movie "The Hole"...she was 16.  British movie.

Tamsin Egerton in the movie "Keeping Mum"...16.

[franksolich]

You know, I saw this bonfire in the distance while on Skins's island, but never went to it, figuring it was something along the lines of the "news" stories posted by the kaput primitive or the racist babbling sister primitive; the sort of nonsense they feed the primitives.

As it turns out, there's even less to this than I had assumed.

[YupItsMe]

This threas is worthless without pics.   

[TheSarge]

What a bunch of hypocrites.  This from the same group that thinks it's perfectly sensible and your duty as a Lib to defend the actions of every pediphile in the country.

[Wineslob]

This thread is worthless without pics.   

Fixed, and here ya go:

[Airwolf]

What a bunch of hypocrites.  This from the same group that thinks it's perfectly sensible and your duty as a Lib to defend the actions of every pediphile in the country.

And to teach kids younger then 16 how to use a condom and getting Oral sex isn't really sex.

[AllosaursRus]

Fixed, and here ya go:

BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!

She even looks old enough for me to have a "chance"!!!!!!!!!!!

[Wineslob]

LOL, I think "Sam" is/was one of the top pin-ups from the 80's.  She still looks great.

[jukin]

How many scrubbed threads at the DUmp concerning real child pornography and their overwhelming support for it?

[Airwolf]

Here is another thing about Samantha Fox. She was Gay the last time I heard anything else about her in the news so I guess the left is starting to hate gays now too . Then again they hate everybody that isn't their friend of the day.