>>12969263
No. Because those images are consider CP.

>>12969274
never knew.

>>12969279
And now you know. And knowing is half the battle.

>>12969274
When did you check her ID ?
Back and forth....shes this age, that age, etc....
When were the pics taken ?

No1 knows

>>12969263
OP......they are all over the net

Silly kids

>No1 knows

I'll take "What is EXIF data" for a thousand Alex

>>12969274
uhhh
a 17yo topless isnt child porn
there is nothing lascivious about it

Hell there are 14-15yo's here topless all day and night

Poster you are an idiot !!!!

File: 96.png (86 KB, 250x250) Image search: [Google]

86 KB, 250x250

>>12969664
>>12969639
>dat rationalization

>>12969291
GI Jooooooooe!

>>12969664
This is the truth. Photographs must be sexually suggestive to be considered child pornography, according to U.S Federal Law: justice dot gov /criminal/ceos/citizensguide/citizensguide_porn dot html. Probably not a legal battle you want to fight though...