Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Charges considered over teen water polo photos

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. In the original text the site is mentioned and I know this site and can say: there are false accusations.E.g. “some as young as 14, posted next to naked images of young men”In my opinion these high school and college players have been at least 16 y.o. and at that site the water polo pics were placed at the -shirtless- gallery, NOT next to naked images.So we have to be careful, some gay haters try to misuse this issue!

    1. What a horrible crime against humanity

  2. Not true it isn’t a gay issue and these boys were all under 16. We are the parents, we know how old our kids are, you don’t. They are considered minors here in the US until they are 18. And, the pics were next to nude gays. The pics that began this investigation have been removed, you can’t view them, but we have them in our archives. The boys are playing a sport, and are not there to be a model, nor did they give permission.

  3. sorry, you are wrong. the site boycollector has different sections for porn and non-porn. Hence the pics could not have been placed next to nudes or even pics of sexual acts. but the original article purports that. all under 16? very curious, there have been also many pics of college players.there are still many sites out there that offer pics of these photographers, so everyone can assure oneself of a fact that most of these players were about 16-24 y.o.Sorry, but 12 or 14 y.o. boys don’t look like these boys. Scott and Allen are no pedophiles. I don’t like such hysterical exaggerations based on homophobia and hate.

  4. AND:the photos are no pornography but just papparazzi shots and these photographers and gays want to illustrate the beauty of young men.

  5. here you find many of the water polo pics of Stanford and Snaps:are these underage children??

  6. kevin dunn 9 May 2008, 4:30pm

    Er, if you look at that link, several of the pictures are of boys, ie: under 16. You people are seriously sick if you think it is ok to go around taking sneaky shots of unsuspecting kids who are just playing water polo or hanging out at the beach, unaware that some drippling pervert is there with his camera. “12 or 14 y.o. boys don’t look like these boys” you sickeningly claim. How do you know? How can you tell that? There are 15year olds who could pass for 18, but they arent 18, theyre a vulnerable kid.By your sick rationale, they are fair game for you and your pervert friends because “In my opinion these high school and college players have been at least 16 y.o.”What about the people in these pics? what about their rights? It made me so sad when I read some of these young guys needed THERAPY to deal with the fact that images of them are being used as masturbation material by the likes of “Tom.” Apparently he claims that its ok to take these sort of photos as “these photographers and gays want to illustrate the beauty of young men.”It is you and the sick f**ks like you who bring all gay men into disrepute. How dare you come in here and assume that I or anyone else accepts that you have any right to perv over vulnerable teenage kids. You do not. You need help. Stop making out that all gay men are borderline paedophiles who spend their days taking sneaky photos of young teenage boys in speedos.

    1. Is Creativeguru or Pepe in the house?

  7. kevin dunn 9 May 2008, 4:31pm

    From Tom’s delightful websiteWHAT AGE IS HE THEN?

  8. Let’s get a couple of things straight here: The age limit for any naked or semi-naked modelling is 18, both in UK and US. *ANYONE* photographed for publication is required to sign a “release form” confirming their acceptance to published usage. Under 18′s require the signed consent of a parent or guardian.What these guys did is both immoral and illegal from a personal intellectual copyright standpoint before we even go into the can of worms about either age or sexuality. They deserve to be privately sued by each and every individual who’s image was used.

    1. This was all media produced hysteria. Has anyone noticed that the photographers are back in the game? The law Cameron Smyth introduced dies on the Hill. He canceled a hearing and its never been addressed again. Everyone knows that taking a picture of someone is perfectly legal and putting that image on the internet is legal too. There’s nothing, I repeat NOTHING, anyone can do about it.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all