That's all fine and well but the determination of what is "seriously" and what is "most likely" harmful to minors is subjective -- legislating a moral issue like "pornography" in a freedom of expression context is going to be up to the member states. Germany or the UK may take one approach to defining the content and its restrictions and places like the Netherlands may take another approach.

Please explain how pornography is seriously harmful in any way -- seriously harmful to what. You watch porn and become a deranged suicide bomber? ( Osama did have a porn stash they found when he was "taken out" but that really doesn't prove anything ...:upsidedow )

You took it in the wrong context; the EU says then the member states do (their politicians interpret).

So, you will end up with a wide variation. It's a subjective decision as there is no conclusive evidence. A person does not watch a porn movie and then go out a to rape and plunder ... maybe he rubs one out but that is an affront to someone's version of acceptable behavior.

Germany has taken a most severe interpretation of the EU policy that may not be the way all the EU member states will act.

This same point was made in the US CDA, COPA and the USC18 §2257 cases also -- the jurisdiction is limited. To a certain degree there will end up being different levels of enforcement in different venues.

There is no reliable age verification the the US 3rd Circuit Appeals Court found

Quote:

On March 22, 2007, U.S. District Judge Lowell A. Reed, Jr. once again struck down the Child Online Protection Act,[7] finding the law facially in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In addition to the plaintiffs ACLU et al., several witnesses testified in defense of first amendment rights on the Internet, including the director of the Erotic Authors Association, Marilyn Jaye Lewis.[8] Reed issued an order permanently enjoining the government from enforcing COPA, commenting that "perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection."[9] The government again appealed, and the case was heard before the Third Circuit.[10] On July 22, 2008, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 2007 decision.[11][12] On January 21, 2009, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear appeals of the lower court decision, effectively killing the bill.[13][14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_O...Protection_Act

So, it is a matter of politically correct and self preserving behavior now -- some sort of enter/exit screen to prevent accidental exposure to explicit content.

As an aside; In the late 1960s I was buying men's magazines over-the-counter when I was 14 and getting Danish nudie mags by mail order -- I just bought a money order. So, don't deceive yourself as to the effectiveness of this -- if minors want porn they will get some somehow.

The inglorious past is not relevant ... Since the internet, we live in a new world -- the cat is out of the bag.

I don't expect the laws to protect my profits.

I also think that not being the cause of my own problems is generally a good idea.

I really don't want to live in my past ... been there done that ...

But their penis will not get hard..
Or they can not keep it hard for more then 10 minutes...
Or they ejaculate in less than 5 minutes (often soft)...
Or they have penis less than 4 inches long...

Most look like either famine victims or like morbidly obeese elephants.
These same girls are willing to stick their heads in a microwave while allowing a dozen stray dogs gang bang her in the ass in exchange for a little bit of attention. But they bring as much "heat" to a sex scene as a naked barbie doll in the back of a freezer.

• 1. All under 30 years of age
• 2. All social morons
• 3. All of them found my contact information by (illegally) downloading one of my videos.