Comments on: MSN CANADA DOES KIDDY PORN AND AUDI SUPPORTS IT OF THE DAY

By: Slappynuts

Slappynuts — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:30:42 +0000

Fuck. Thanks Jesus. I saw that picture you posted of Brooke Sheilds at 13 and had to do the 5 knuckle shuffle on my trouser snake. Then I popped in my copy of Pretty Baby and spanked it for another hour and a half. Now I’m chafing. You suck Jesus!

By: Candi Apples

Candi Apples — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:06:21 +0000

Children were so exploited in the 70′s and 80′s,
and Brooke Shields was no exception to that rule.

MSN should know better,than to post such a pic.

Fuck MSN,Yahoo is better anyways.lol

By: FngFer

FngFer — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:05:24 +0000

If I remember correctly, women in Toronto can pop their boobs out when ever they want, just as long as making money isn’t involved. It’s been legal for a few years but it doesn’t seem to have taken off.

Doesn’t matter what age Brooke is, I can’t get around them eyebrowels. They don’t clean up too nicely. Madonna’s kid should have better luck under the electrolysis needle, though.

Hugs and kisses!

Fucking Fucker

By: HorneyLohanWanker

HorneyLohanWanker — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:05:12 +0000

I would definitely fuck the pre-legal age brooke over the legal age brooke.

I mean, she was a hooker, right?

By: Uncle Joe Mccarthy

Uncle Joe Mccarthy — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:55:30 +0000

btw, when pretty baby came out, tom snyder showed a pic of brooke shields topless

he was never busted for kiddie porn

By: I Agree

I Agree — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:35:03 +0000

I absolutely agree with you. I like Brooke Shields myself, but why was there never anything done about the exploitation when she was younger. The most outrageous things to me was that she was allowed to be filmed nude at 12 or 13 in the movie “Pretty Baby” and that isn’t considered wrong to whomever is in charge of seeing things like that doesn’t happen. I know that was back in the 1970′s, but there were still laws around to protect kids from being exploited like that.

I also wanted to note that I have been reading all over the place that the FBI is investigating some possibly stolen photos of Jamie Lynn Spears breastfeeding. Ok, so the FBI is warning that anyone who may be trying to sell or buy those photos are in danger of being arrested for child porn. I guess the laws can be stretched enough to make that stick. My question, though, is why is her husband not being arrested for possession of child porn if those photos are being considered that? It was noted that he took the camera to Wal-Mart to get the pics developed. The whole thing sounds like a big scare tactic to keep the photos off the web.

Seriously, video stores can still rent or sell “Pretty Baby”, a movie with a under 14 girl naked and playing a prostitute, but if the tabloids offer to buy they pic of a 17 year old popping a boob to feed their baby, they can be arrested?

I also get a kick out of the fact that if 2 girls are sitting in a public place and 1 has a baby, she can pop out her boobs and it’s supposed to be fine (in fact, if anyone objects, that person is usually the one seen as being in the wrong). If the other girl just decides she is getting too hot and takes off her shirt, she can be cited with indecent exposure (depending on where you live). How bad is that?

In case it came across different, I agree that the Jamie Lynn photos should be kept private, at the least, but if it is a matter of law, then the movie should also not be allowed.

By: rainbone

rainbone — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:28:13 +0000

Her prifiles and hot photos were found on ♥♥♥ wealthyromanceS.Com ♥♥♥ 2 weeks ago. It is an online dating service where wealthy singles can join who are looking for younger unattached people to enjoy their wealthy lifestyle with.