GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

jpv · 04-17-2002, 03:31 PM

I am sick of seeing sites advertising girls under 18 posing nude. Sites with a large traffic base should take a closer look at their advertisers and stop supporting this stuff.

This is great...

"None of the images on this site are illegal. This has been determined by our attorney, whose is an expert in the law pertaining to the First Amendment and images of nudity. MET contains images of nudity only. There are no images of hard-core sexual conduct, i.e., masturbation, intercourse of any type, oral-genital contact, or sadomasochism. There is no obscenity or child pornography to be found on MET. In order for an image to be obscene, it must violate contemporary community standards, appeal to a prurient interest in sex, and be devoid of any artistic, scientific, political or other social value. Nudity alone is not enough for an image to be illegal, as the Supreme Court has stated on many occasions. "Spread" shots of adult women (at least 18 years of age) are legal, as they do not violate contemporary community standards anywhere in the United States. In order for an image to be "child pornography," it must depict a person under the age of 18 (a minor) engaged in "sexually explicit conduct" (i.e., the types of hard-core conduct described above), or a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area." Nudity alone is also not enough to make an image "child pornography." U.S. v. 264 Magazines (Jeunes et naturels) (Third Circuit) There are many examples of legal images of nude minors in the United States, for example, in books by Jock Sturges, David Hamilton, Sally Mann and Graham Ovenden, among others. An image of a minor depicts a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" when (1) the minor's genitals or pubic area are the focus of the image, (2) the setting of the depiction is sexually suggestive or a place where sexual activity generally takes place (like a bedroom); (3) the pose or attire of the minor is unnatural or inappropriate given the age of the minor; (4) part of the clothing of the minor is intentionally arranged so as to expose the crotch area; (5) the minor expresses a "come-on" look denoting a willingness to engage in sexual activity; or (6) the image is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer. United States v. Dost. In United States v. Villard, the Third Circuit stated that "more than one factor must be present in order to establish lasciviousness." Villard and other cases suggest that whether an image is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer should be determined from the intent of the photographer, never the viewer. In those few i mages on MET which may depict models who have not yet reached the age of 18 (there are no images of children posted here), we are extremely careful not to run afoul of these guidelines. You will find that all images on MET of models who are not yet 18 are tasteful and artistic, well within the bounds of legal propriety. In conclusion, you, the viewer, can rest assured that we have carefully reviewed the photographs we are posting -- not just to keep ourselves safe under the law, but to keep you safe as well.
MET Staff"

Yep... its art... its tasteful... they charge $30 per month so you can jerk off to it.

04-17-2002, 03:31 PM
jpv Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 301	Easy Pic has a CP banner I am sick of seeing sites advertising girls under 18 posing nude. Sites with a large traffic base should take a closer look at their advertisers and stop supporting this stuff. This is great... "None of the images on this site are illegal. This has been determined by our attorney, whose is an expert in the law pertaining to the First Amendment and images of nudity. MET contains images of nudity only. There are no images of hard-core sexual conduct, i.e., masturbation, intercourse of any type, oral-genital contact, or sadomasochism. There is no obscenity or child pornography to be found on MET. In order for an image to be obscene, it must violate contemporary community standards, appeal to a prurient interest in sex, and be devoid of any artistic, scientific, political or other social value. Nudity alone is not enough for an image to be illegal, as the Supreme Court has stated on many occasions. "Spread" shots of adult women (at least 18 years of age) are legal, as they do not violate contemporary community standards anywhere in the United States. In order for an image to be "child pornography," it must depict a person under the age of 18 (a minor) engaged in "sexually explicit conduct" (i.e., the types of hard-core conduct described above), or a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area." Nudity alone is also not enough to make an image "child pornography." U.S. v. 264 Magazines (Jeunes et naturels) (Third Circuit) There are many examples of legal images of nude minors in the United States, for example, in books by Jock Sturges, David Hamilton, Sally Mann and Graham Ovenden, among others. An image of a minor depicts a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" when (1) the minor's genitals or pubic area are the focus of the image, (2) the setting of the depiction is sexually suggestive or a place where sexual activity generally takes place (like a bedroom); (3) the pose or attire of the minor is unnatural or inappropriate given the age of the minor; (4) part of the clothing of the minor is intentionally arranged so as to expose the crotch area; (5) the minor expresses a "come-on" look denoting a willingness to engage in sexual activity; or (6) the image is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer. United States v. Dost. In United States v. Villard, the Third Circuit stated that "more than one factor must be present in order to establish lasciviousness." Villard and other cases suggest that whether an image is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer should be determined from the intent of the photographer, never the viewer. In those few i mages on MET which may depict models who have not yet reached the age of 18 (there are no images of children posted here), we are extremely careful not to run afoul of these guidelines. You will find that all images on MET of models who are not yet 18 are tasteful and artistic, well within the bounds of legal propriety. In conclusion, you, the viewer, can rest assured that we have carefully reviewed the photographs we are posting -- not just to keep ourselves safe under the law, but to keep you safe as well. MET Staff" Yep... its art... its tasteful... they charge $30 per month so you can jerk off to it.