A few days ago I reported that a photo of 20-year-old Kacy Anne Hill had to be removed from American Apparel's web site because the UK's Advertising Standards Authority thought she looked like she was under 16. Click here to read my post, in which I discuss the issue in detail. I commented that many similar photos were still on the web site. Now, four days later, they have all been removed. In order to fight against Internet censorship I have published a gallery of all 40 photos of Kacy Anne Hill in a thong. Please join the fight against censorship by downloading the photos and sharing them on your own web site or social media networks.
Of course, there are many more photos of Kacy Anne Hill available on the Internet. Many are more sexually explicit than the photos I have published. You can find them easily by searching the web. I have no interest in displaying them on my blog. My photo gallery only contains the 40 photos that have fallen victim to censorship.
.jpg)
You can find all 40 photos of Kacy Anne Hill by clicking on this picture. If you enjoy the photos, please leave me a comment saying "Thank You".
I can see the problem. She does look very young. I wouldnt of thought she is 20.
ReplyDeleteYou're the last person I would have expected to take ASA's side, Anne. Yes, she looks young. I think it's the freckles that make her look young. I would have guessed her age as 14 or 15, but she's 20. That's a fact.
DeleteLet me ask you a rhetorical question. Imagine two explicit nude photos. Not just nude or skimpily dressed, two pornographic photos. One photo shows a 15-year-old girl who looks like she's 21. The other shows a 21-year-old girl who looks like she's 15. Which one is worse?
It's easy to answer, isn't it? In the first picture the 15-year-old girl is being exploited, and the photographer thinks he can get away with it because she looks older than she is. In the second picture nobody is being exploited. It's an adult doing adult things. There is no victim. Is a victimless crime a crime at all? There are different opinions on this subject, but I say No. Laws define crimes in order to protect people. If a law against a certain act isn't protecting anyone, the law needs to be changed.