Quote:
Originally posted by Kimmykim
Not going to be a debate this time Labret, at least not as far as I am concerned.
Regardless of anyone on this boards personal feelings about these sites, the bottom line is that as defined under federal law, they are legal. Customs has looked at these sites and has no issue with them at all.
Our TOS clearly states that anyone under the age of 18 without their clothes on is not something we process for. Our TOS does not prohibit clothed people of any age in single person shots.
On a personal level, I'm not too sure about the parents of these kids, but then again I wouldn't allow my son to be in the average Calvin Klein ad, which is neither here nor there in the matter.
As far as attacking CCBill, I'm so used to it, it really doesn't bother me one bit. We've dumped sites that are legal in the past, we've complied entirely with Visa regulations, hell, we even canned the beastie entirely -- unlike some processors who'll do the charges with everything BUT Visa, or the ones that are trying to get Visa to allow them to continue to process the fake beastie sites. But no, the bitching goes on... and on... yet the people that scream the loudest keep right on cashing the checks we send them every week.
That last part isn't really directed at anyone in particular keep in mind, just a musing on my part...
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We even canned the beastie sites..."
Judging by US regulations you shouldnt have been processing for them in the first place...
I can careless about your debate with Labret or however many times you have had to deal with this. This has to do with my personal use of services by a company who hides behind fashiopn along side these fuckling pedophiles...
Ask yourself this.... who is paying to see these sites?
Ask yourself... are these images the same as a commercial?
Ask yourself... why the emphasis on the girls age? These people brag about the girls being 13, they put big flashing age categories of 14, 15,. 16... if this was just fashion, why so much focus on the girls age?
Also if this was fashion, why no contact to get the girls to be able to mdoel, you overlook all OTHER codes used to define CP, my bet is CC Bill doesnt have a fucking clue what CP is... they need to attend a forum on it, as someone erlier said,.. thats onle ONE of the things used to determine CP.
Ask yourself... why do they NEED to let you know the girls are undr 18 ie up2017-fashion.net
Then think about the parent who most liekly dont know what the pics are being used for, havent you seen the news lately?
I bet if CC Bill would ask these people for Parental Permission slips for these 14 year old girls they dont have them.
So thinking about whos paying to watch them, why they constantly focus on"shes 14..." and the URLs obvious "up-2-17, looks to me like some serious underage suggestions...
Thyere are many variables in decoding what CP is... unfortunealt CC Bill must let the $ cloud this formula.
oh one more thing.... when we started doing "non nude" it wasnt teen. I have been a hard player in the NON HARDCORE adult scene... my girlfriends amateur site which uses CC Bill is NOT HARDCORE,... mostly NOn Nude, but its not teen...
Non nude has been around for years... its not "Non nude" thats wrong, its when people house galleries of 14 year old girls in hotels, hiding behind the "shes not nude" line.
You cant brush this off, im alredy talking to the host.
If I cant get what I want through CC Bill, then i shall through the host...
One day youll regret not taking a stance against this now.
I havent read all the posts since I started this... I have calmed down but now I seem to be getting pissed again... so to everyone I apololgize, but this shit is fucking with me, now I see they will only try to brush it off...
Kimmy dont you have a son? Maybe he'll get tricked into doing a couple photo shoots for a company that does "jeans" commercials and then maybe CC Bill can proces the site...
"up2-17boys-in-jeans.com"
because like it or not, thats how these sites operate, by trickery.
Yeah... sorry to be personal, but just using an example... people that let this go... need a little example to reassure them ...