Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tony404
They fought to have virtual cp legal,which to me wasnt the best idea.Having girls pretend to be underage is a bad idea.
|
I'm not sure you are understanding the nature of that "virtual child porn" law that FSC defeated. Under that law, anyone who published pictures of a model who "appeared to be" a minor, even if the model was 40 and you could prove it, would be punished as if they had actually abused a child and produced child porn. Certainly you don't think that's a law that should have stood? Personally I'm not eager to see the Christian fundamentalists have a tool like that to use against any website that features younger but legal models. Additionally, models who were adults but LOOKED young would essentially never get work in the business because it could have led to "virtual child porn" charges. Did you ever see how young Trisha Uptown looked when she was 19? Why should she lose her right to find work because the censorship crowd was looking for more tools to use against the industry? Should Larry Flynt be thrown in jail over "Barely Legal" and treated the same as a child pornographer even though all his models are over 18, it states as such, and he can prove it? It was a very good thing that the FSC beat that "virtual child porn" law. As 2257 shows, efforts to censor adult material are almost always masked in some "protect the children" wrapper.
Regarding what you are saying about getting the message out to the public... I 100% and absolutely COMPLETELY agree with you. I can assure you that you will be seeing a lot more of that from the FSC. And again I would remind you... just a few months ago the FSC hired a FEDERAL lobbyist. Meaning, the operation has been taken beyond Sacramento already. These are definitely vaid issues you are bringing up, and I have brought them both up with the board myself. I think you will be pleased with the results you will see.