Point of clarification please.... Kiera Knightley was also underage and her pictures are still on the site. What is the difference?
As far as I know this was true of three incidences. The Hole caps [topless], the Liam Duke Photoshoot of 2002 [slightly revealing], and the Bend it Like Beckham premier [bare midriff].
All have now been removed.
The answer to your question is There's no difference at all. Just some stuff that slipped under the wire.
Now here's why.
In the UK the ages are different. A girl cannot be photographed topless until she is 16 and cannot be photographed fully nude until 18. It is slightly different again in Europe, different again in Scandanavia, and so on. In the US [to my knowledge] the age is 18 and 21. This board is hosted in the US and US laws apply. That is quite important to remember
Knightley appeared topless in The Hole at 16 but it was a British film. It's likely neither poster nor moderators
at the time were aware of her age or the limits. One tends not to consider an "underaged" girl will be allowed to be naked or semi-naked in such a provocative manner in a mainstream western movie. Consider the shitstorm over Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby, and the controversy over Anne Hathaway in Havok even though she was 22 at the time. Id be curious to know if the film was shown unedited in US cinemas. If so that also poses some questions of the US classification bureau. We can discuss and debate the rights wrongs and hypocrisies of a nation with draconian morality laws that in the same breath practically prostitutes its young female celebrities but those are philosophical points. The law is what it is and this board cant take on that kind of legal war just so a few people can get off posting what are essentially revealing pictures of an underaged girl on a forum devoted to nudity. Surely this should not have to be underlined?
However there is also a difference between some caps slipping under the wire and the predatory nature of the feeding frenzy here over Bella Thorne. The moment she turned 18 it was as though someone had fired a starter gun and every shot of her ever taken in a bikini or in underwear was being posted on an ADULT BASED forum. Not in a fashion magazine or some celebrity gossip rag. An ADULT BASED forum. Turning 18 doesn't make that right if she is under 18 in the photos. Anything taken from this point on is fair game legally and no one could care less. Anything taken before this point is not fair game, and posting this stuff is dubious. Legally and (in my opinion) morally
On a personal note I don't see the attractions. I've never seen the appeal of 16 year old girls, even when I was 16, and always preferred my women to look like women and not children or famine victims. But hey. I'm odd that way.
BOC
