Quote:
Originally posted by UnseenWorld
Actually, I concur with the idea that a nude person who happens to be under 18 (our local idea of what "of age" should be) is NOT automatically porn. In that case, cathedrals are covered with child porn in the form of nude cherubs. I think the mind that sees a nude child and automatically thinks "porn" is the actual sick one.
|
If it's used on an adult site, I consider it CHILD PORN. Do they put naked pictures of LITTLE GIRLS in Playboy or Hustler? This is not an artistic site. It is not a museum. This site is far from a church. It is an ADULT site where PERVERTS get off on looking at LITTLE GIRLS. They SPECIFICALLY STATED before they MODIFIED their DISCLAMER that they have CHILDREN UNDER 18 in what would be CONSIDERED CHILD PORN after July 3, 1995.
"All of the models, actors, actresses and other persons that appear
in any visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct appearing or otherwise contained in the following Website were over the age of eighteen years at the time of the creation of such depictions.
All other visual depictions displayed on this Website are exempt from the provision of 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 because said visual depictions do not consist of depictions of conduct as
specifically listed in 18 U.S.C section 2256 (2) (A) through (D), but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity, or are depictions of simulated sexual conduct,
or are otherwise exempt because the visual depictions were created prior to July 3, 1995."
This is my last post in this thread. I am not arguing, I am trying to make a point and have something done about it. There is already one just like it and I already gave a reference to it. They are obviously breaking CCBill's TOS, but CCBill does not care enough to check the site out like I've asked three times already. Just because they changed their disclaimer doesn't mean shit.