Nanny Pam said:UFB. And her parents are allowing this!
watercolor said:They are trying to state it isnt child ponography because she is wearing a body suit in the scenes which this occurs. I am not saying this is right- but this is what they are saying to make it "better".
That's the way these Hollyweird parents are - they'll pimp their kid out for a buck so fast it'll make your head spin.Dupontster said:I think Mom doesn't care about this child and she is only seeing $$$$$$$$$$$$ Should be strung up....
donbarzini said:Depending on where it was filmed, I guess.......BUT most jurisdictions state that even "simulated" sex acts are covered under the relevant law, so they're not covered.
watercolor said:oh I agree. I am not saying it is right in any means. But that is what they are trying to claim, that it wasnt her actual "body" being shown in the scenes and that because she was "covered" that it wouldnt be so much of a simulation of it against her. WTFever.. its still sick.
donbarzini said:I'm sorry. Didn't mean for you to think that I thought(Huh??) you were defending it. I realized that you were just quoting their sorry attempts to cover their child-molesting a$$es. Robin Wright Penn needs to travel with her husband Sean next time he goes to Iraq and maybe the American public will get lucky.
Who would want to post 6 month old news and pretend it's happening todayGeek said:
No, they allowed it in July of last yearNanny Pam said:UFB. And her parents are allowing this!
It's making the news now so why are trying to act like it's not a current topic?aps45819 said:No, they allowed it in July of last year