The girl looks very underage to me, and it is not the only post by @IamGod of underage women, there are plenty. This photo is one of many examples on that blog.
For example, this other one and this comment:
The other two images @IamGod posted that I exposed were of clearly underage girls topless with their nipples showing, or is that not child porn? Why are you not showing those and attacking me over 1 post that you cannot prove I am wrong about?
I explained what this thong photo was and to me it is child porn, the image clearly to me depicts an underage girl in a thong, and the poster knew it would be considered pornography so they marked it NSFW. The Daddy reference is letting people attracted to this type of content know it is an underage girl.
I report child trafficking cases, I have seen this type of thing countless times.
@titusfrost The more I read from your comments the more it crystalizes: Your tone is always very agressive to anybody who is not the same opinion than yours and the methodes of argumentation you repeatedly come up with remembers clearly to witchhunt from the middle age.
How easy killing a steemit account within 3 hours because the user simply upvoted a naked girl somebody else has postet. This is witchhunt par excellence. And where does this lead to? BIG BROTHER STEEMIT policed by Dr. Frost ?
Maybe you are the one who needs medical help. maybe you suffer from delusion and cognitive dissonance as it seems in my diagnosis so far. I mean no joke, maybe you are the one in need for medical help. Or maybe you are just an attention whore on stereoids. if so calm down man. It is disgusting to see how easy it is to witchhunt for a simple like on a not even naked girl ! I am strongly against any kind of childpornography, but to come up with paedo-ring in this specific constellation is far beyond ridicolous. I guess someone is suffering from cognitive dissonance a lot here.
Before we start throwing around SERIOUS ACCUSATIONS I think it's important to get something clear before the torches are lit and pitch fork wielding righteous indignation fully takes over...
Following does not necessarily indicate support, neither in whole or in part. Following does not necessarily indicate agreement, neither in whole or in part. Users should not be required to make sure there's no objectionable content in someones posting history before they hit follow. You are not responsible for the actions of those you follow. Users gain followers for any number of meaningless impersonal reasons (following can be automated, following can be calculated, following can be strategic, following can be frivolous) Even upvoting doesn't necessarily imply anything. (voting can be automated, voting can be calculated, voting can be strategic, voting can be frivolous)..and damn I hate pedophiles, i really hate them, I even made Memes exposing them.
I love good research - again thank you so much for the support!
You are wrong, read the legal definition of child pornography: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1998/act/22/section/2/enacted/en/html
The image I exposed meets the criteria by the legal definition of it.