On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:21:17 +1300, Vladimir wrote:
> In article <Part1of2.60CF4600E0C44E4084050E4751F50D30@1420112408.local>,
> Tam O'Shanter <tos@erins.greensod> wrote:
>
>> =ybegin part=1 line=128 size=554570 name=IMG_5202.JPG
>
>
> You know what's amusing (and should be of interest to the photographer)
> of lesser interest to the poster, probably
>
> Pictures like this (and many others of course) probably offend against
> US law even though the girl is not naked. (Note I am not complaining,
> only commenting as a person who used to be immersed in such matters).
> I often used to wonder why a photographer would risk his liberty by
> making such a picture yet stop short of making it a "money shot" by
> doing it naked, which probably is what almost everyone really wants and
> which would not get him into water that was any hotter if he did.
>
> Does anyone know who the photographer was? He surely would not like to
> disclose his identity in here but I would like to converse with him at
> some point.
why do you suspect the photographer is in a jurisdiction where he would
care about US laws?
|
|
![Favorite](javascript:myfavor('http://www.nzbot.com/article/alt.binaries.pictures.totty.repost/1395', 'Re: Lolly Outdoors set 94 - 57 files - "IMG_5202.JPG" yEnc (1/2)')){kind=link}