>>34656
That was that American olympic gymnast.

If anything she should be done for producing CP which is a bigger crime than distribution or possession, your honour.

Or it could be a clever way to get them removed off the internet and she was in fact over 18 when taking the photos. I mean if I was a woman that would be my excuse but then again I wouldn't take nude photos of myself knowing well enough that they will get out unless I never put them on the net and I physically destroy the device that captured them

>>34657
CP, rape and terrorism? They're really going all out on this.

It's nice to know that simply viewing an image of J Law's jubblies is equivalent to being in ISIS. Oh I play video games too so according to gamers gate I'm a double terrorist.

>>34659

Don't forget rapist.

>>34634

>Besides, their beauty is the main reason they're famous, or at least a necessary contribution

Nope. Jennifer Lawrence is cute, but she's nothing special. Being 'not horrific to look at' is a requirement, but most of the populace fulfil that. It's mainly acting talent and charisma. It's like the Pornstar fallacy I made up, that being that if a girl is in porn she's automatically considered less naturally attractive than a girl who's less attractive but portrays quirky, sexy characters in films. Lots of celebrities aren't objectively above a 7, but their presence makes them more attractive and lots of people simply don't look through it.

>>34661

Sasha Grey is an example of a Pornstar that is famous even by Hollywood standards. She has been given awards by the porn industry, been in shit films, voiced video game characters. She has been on talk shows, although as a Pariah and the subject of derision and scorn by the host.

She is more attractive than 70-80% of the women in hollywood or elsewhere in the media, music industry, etc. You'll never see her in a FHM top 100 though, though they are happy to do articles about her.

Who would have thunk it, eh? Nudey mags suffer from political manoeuvring too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29061358

Well then...

>>34669
Whoa. They managed to tame the monster.

>>34670
>Although this might have some impact on regular users of the site who maintain an account, it is not clear what effect the policy change will have on the many others who post material anonymously and supply no identifying information.

It's weird how the internet changes. This statement reeks of "wait. How can they post without using their name?"

I remember back in the 90s I was to never to talk to strangers in real life. In 1999 that extended to the internet. Then in the early to mid 2000s I was told never to put my personal information out there. Now it's encouraged to put my personal info out there publicly as it can lead to several disadvantages in life.

>>34671
*lead to several disadvantages in life IF I DON'T

>>34661
>Lots of celebrities aren't objectively above a 7
Fuck off with that shite, mate.

>>34673
What, ranking people's looks out of ten? I vaguely recall some idiot objecting to this on these boards in the past as well, was it you?

>>34674

I'm sure it was your use of the word objectively, as it is ridiculous. It's an opinion you and others share, not an objective fact.

Stuff like that annoys .gs at large.

>>34674
How is it objectively? Are you dense? You fucking moron.

>>34675
>>34676
Your remarks would make sense if you were addressing >>34661, but you're not.

>>34674
>What, ranking people's looks out of ten?
Yeah, that and the "objectively" thing. Both a bit daft.

>I vaguely recall some idiot objecting to this on these boards in the past as well, was it you?
I don't think so.

Looks are a Gaussian, lads. Never feel bad about saying a girl is a 5, 70% of them are.

I hate myself for actually having had this conversation in real life.

>>34670
nah, all the hardcore /b/tards will just up sticks and move to 7chan and the like instead. trying to control the internet is like fighting a hydra. cut off one head another springs up in it's place. and they can't arrest literally everyone who's had a peek at lawrences tits which makes enforcement of any kind of judgement ultimately impossible.

kirsten dunst had the right idea- she just shrugged it off and carrie don. the more fuss gets created the longer this goes on.

>>34675

Yeah my bad (I'm >>34661). I guess a better way to put it is, if you took them out of a celebrity context, a lot of people might not give them a second look, but because of their fame and the image projected, they come off as more attractive than they are. My use of 'objectivity' her was meant to relate to looking at them out of the context of them being famous and recognisable and because you saw their bum in a film once.

As for the '7/10', firstly it's obviously not a finely tuned system but if you think of it as 'Most people seem to consider her prettier than her' and so on...it's a little bit arbitrary but that's obvious, I mean you can't completely break down a person like that but it suffices for quick examples.

>>34680

>trying to control the internet is like fighting a hydra

Of course, because you've fought a Hydra, and would know, right? Bullshitter.

>>34693

Wont no wot hit im.

>>34693

How do you know he hasn't fought a hydra?

I wonder why 4chan has taken that stance? It can't be for moral reasons as they've never bothered about ex-gf or other stolen pictures being posted in their thousands.

>>34699

It's a way to avoid legal trouble while operating almost entirely as normal. By the time a DMCA takedown notice can be issued most 4chan threads have 404'd.

>>34503

Cracking body for her though. Well worth a shuffle.

So the washington post did an article on a man who shared the images on reddit. Not the hacker or the leaker. They acknowledged 4chan (written as 4Chan like every other news outlet for some reason) was where the images were originally posted.

they dug into his entire history. The article in short was just a LOOK AT THIS LOSER as they mentioned his aspergers, his inability to secure a loan and how many odd jobs he has. Some of the investigation was actually quite disturbing that they go to the lengths of a pap (assuming washington post isn't already a pap site). The comments are how you'd expect a daily mail comment section are to be like.

http://pastebin.com/hQw03X8i
Here's the article in a pastebin because I'm not entirely comfortable giving them extra hits. The article rubs me in the wrong way. I'm not sure why, it just seems far too slimy in that I don't know if "John" deserved it.

>>34702
>The Post is not revealing “John’s” real name, or accounts linked to his real name, out of concern for his privacy.
Nothing to do with their cross-referencing not amounting to anything other than something like slander until his identity is proven in a court of law then.

>>34503
She would be 10/10 if she were laying eggs in that picture.

There's more out.

>>34704
Dog eggs?

Does anyone else remember the BBC news article that some authority is creating a cloud based archive of childporn, supposedly to make it easier to identify 'models' new to the scene?

>>34742
No, that's just the Cabinet putting all their private collections together.

>>39902
Well worth the bump m7.

>>39903
I'm quite happy for that image to be at the top of /*/ again.

>>39904
I'm not happy to be reminded of this massive creepfest.

>>39905
It is aesthetically pleasing though. The softness of the light, the minimal contrast between the flesh tones and the beiges, her posture. I like it.

>>39906
*tips fedora*

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>39905
You mean to tell me that you don't find her sexually attractive?

>>39908
JLaw? Yeah she's pretty hot. Don't see what that has to do with looking at her private photos though.

Have you lot seen Justin Bieber's cock? Some paparazzi took a picture of Justin when he was walking about naked on some resort.

It's massive.

>>39910
How's the lighting?

>>39910
Unless he was walking around with a stiffy I'm not sure how you can really tell, nor why you would want to.

>>39910
That's what counts as massive? Score!

>>39913
Mate, I'm really fat, so my bestmate looks like a turtle head fighting to stick its head out of all the fat enveloping it.

>>39911
It was taken in daylight. Natural light and all.

>>39912
Spoken like a lad with a tiny cock. It's okay mate. No need to get sour over Bieber's fat, massive cock.

Imagine that. Justin fucking Bieber. The guy who was the butt of every gay and effeminate joke, has a massive fucking cock. Jesus.

>>39914
My other half's reaction upon being shown the photo was "He's just gone up in my estimation."

>>39915
Be honest, how do you feel about that?

>>39914

>Imagine that. Justin fucking Bieber. The guy who was the butt of every gay and effeminate joke, has a massive fucking cock. Jesus.

Not being funny but I've never seen what that has to do with anything.

I'm a long haired skinny twink boi type boi type and I still sport a schlong like a racehorse. Even if we're talking about gay blokes, what is there to stop gays having big cocks? All the better to plough tiny neg arseholes.

Yeah, it really isn't that big...

>>39916
Eh, I'm alright with it. I've no worries over my own manhood and she's seen/heard me perv on enough people.

>>39914

Are effeminate gays exempt from having massive cocks?

>>39920
Exempt no, but my purely academic research indicates it's less common. YMMV.