Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

I think the general feeling is that even if it doesn't harm the children directly the pervert might get so pumped on the content that he feels the need to molest children that dont have anything to do with the internet..

Its def not a clearly defined MORAL or LEGAL stand..

But the point is DOES JEFF STILL PROMOTE this material , and if so post proof , like the sites , and if he doesnt then let sleeping dogs lie..

IF jeff did promote this material and ccbill actively processed the charges , then why wouldnt you be on ccbill's case ??

MANY many people whether they want to admit it or not have profited from this sort of material right or wrong.. ccbill made money from the processing , but they chose to DISCONTINUE this source of revenue due to moral reasons.. Well it seems to me jeff took the exact same stance.. he realise the material may be harmfull and switched venues EXACTLY the same way ccbill did ..

So if you want to say JEFF HAD NON-NUDE underage girls sites , then you should also point out CCBILL processed NON-NUDE underage girls..