Wtf!!! Cp Or What!!!!!!!! - GoFuckYourself.com

Wiseman · 06-14-2003, 02:02 AM

OK I am going through sites looking for different sites to promote and I come across this tour!!!!

http://www.boygirlbang.com/visitors/...railers/68.wmv

Now Watch this shit and listen carefully!! well not to careful you dont have to!!! I dont care if it is fake it is still Illegal!!! This is fucked up and Deserves to be shut fucking down!!!!

Rot in hell!!

Kimmykim · 06-14-2003, 02:04 AM

That's ridiculous. I don't care if she is 30, do not fucking say she is 16.

Peter Romero · 06-14-2003, 02:07 AM

They popped Max on that line. Even though he got out of it, it cost him BANK in legal fees.

thekebie · 06-14-2003, 02:07 AM

but didn't they have the funny fat guy who went off as soon as he got touched video.

stevecore · 06-14-2003, 02:10 AM

had to watch it twice to catch it... now theyre gonna take a closer look at reality sites cuz of this guy's fuckup. totally wrong.

Number1Thumb · 06-14-2003, 02:18 AM

Its totally wrong, fix it you jerk off's. On another note WTF with the brotha who cant get up his 4.5" cock. AND he's on a video. TRY AGAIN

Gutterboy · 06-14-2003, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by stevecore
had to watch it twice to catch it... now theyre gonna take a closer look at reality sites cuz of this guy's fuckup. totally wrong.

Love the sig

BRISK · 06-14-2003, 02:58 AM

Playing with fire

06-14-2003, 03:06 AM

Good lord. Not only is it there, but it's emphasized! Bastards

Gutterboy · 06-14-2003, 03:08 AM

Dayum, thats pretty bold.

Mr.Fiction · 06-14-2003, 03:27 AM

It is not illegal in the United States. Stupid, but not illegal.

Child porn means people under 18 involved in porn.

It doesn't mean people pretending to be under 18.

Ever hear of the Constitution or the Supreme Court? How about movies like American Pie?

It's a stupid move by the site, because they are asking for trouble. However, to be child porn, there has to be a child involved.

Kimmykim · 06-14-2003, 03:31 AM

What it does mean is that it's not acceptable under Visa's brand image regulations.

Pleasurepays · 06-14-2003, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
It is not illegal in the United States. Stupid, but not illegal.

Child porn means people under 18 involved in porn.

It doesn't mean people pretending to be under 18.

Ever hear of the Constitution or the Supreme Court? How about movies like American Pie?

It's a stupid move by the site, because they are asking for trouble. However, to be child porn, there has to be a child involved.

of course its illegal in the US

what do you do for a living ... wash cars?

Jayson · 06-14-2003, 03:38 AM

Its not illegal in the US.

Check out Ken Park - mainstreamish movie, actual sex scene, actors playing minors. (btw, the same movie would be illegal in Australia - Ken Park was just refused classification and cant be shown here because of the actual sex with actors portraying minors - if it was simulated it would be ok)

Having said that .... I still think its wrong

Mr.Fiction · 06-14-2003, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pleasurepays

of course its illegal in the US

what do you do for a living ... wash cars?

Do you read the news much? Do you follow major court cases?

It's not illegal. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled on this very issue within the last year.

Read this:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/sc...al.child.porn/

Do you want me to vacuum the inside too?

Pleasurepays · 06-14-2003, 03:46 AM

ok. i am going to go rent "ass fucked 13 year olds."

- oh wait. i cant. there is no such thing.

you are talking about "virtual child pornography" where the image is manipulated to simulate a child.

i am too tired to go look up the details but i am 99.9% sure that you absolutely cannot say that a girl is underage and then show her in sexually explicit poses or acts.

[ps... how do i get that new car smell again?]

BRISK · 06-14-2003, 03:46 AM

Anyone seen the movie "Kids"?

Mr.Fiction · 06-14-2003, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BRISK
Anyone seen the movie "Kids"?

How about American Beauty with Mena Suvari and Kevin Spacey on the couch?

Or the indie movie Fat Girl. Some underage girl gets raped. I think the actress really is underage too.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/FatG...67/reviews.php

Pleasurepays · 06-14-2003, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction

How about American Beauty with Mena Suvari and Kevin Spacey on the couch?

Or the indie movie Fat Girl. Some underage girl gets raped. I think the actress really is underage too.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/FatG...67/reviews.php

Sec. 2256. - Definitions for chapter

For the purposes of this chapter, the term -

(1)

''minor'' means any person under the age of eighteen years;

(2)

''sexually explicit conduct'' means actual or simulated -

(A)

sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;

(B)

bestiality;

(C)

masturbation;

(D)

sadistic or masochistic abuse; or

(E)

lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

(3)

''producing'' means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;

(4)

''organization'' means a person other than an individual;

(5)

''visual depiction'' includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image;

(6)

''computer'' has the meaning given that term in section 1030 of this title;

(7)

''custody or control'' includes temporary supervision over or responsibility for a minor whether legally or illegally obtained;

(8)

''child pornography'' means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where -

(A)

the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(B)

such visual depiction is, or appears to be , of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(C)

such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

(D)

such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

Theo · 06-14-2003, 03:54 AM

even if it's not illegal, still its fucked up and shouldn't happen in first place.

Paul Markham · 06-14-2003, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pleasurepays

of course its illegal in the US

what do you do for a living ... wash cars?

So we know what he does, what business are you in?

Pleasurepays · 06-14-2003, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction

How about American Beauty with Mena Suvari and Kevin Spacey on the couch?

Or the indie movie Fat Girl. Some underage girl gets raped. I think the actress really is underage too.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/FatG...67/reviews.php

you are not talking about images or movies where her genitals are shown in a sexually explicit manner.

Paul Markham · 06-14-2003, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soul_Rebel
even if it's not illegal, still its fucked up and shouldn't happen in first place.

That would account for 10%+ of the stuff for sale on the net and if you spoke to some people they would say 99%

She's playing a wild crazy 16 year old. Like in real life that would never happen. We know US girls never do any of that stuff.

kmanrox · 06-14-2003, 04:06 AM

highly illegal and stupid at the same time...

Mr.Fiction · 06-14-2003, 04:11 AM

The Supreme Court has ruled, it's not illegal.

Theo · 06-14-2003, 04:15 AM

yes very stupid,what we need now is a couple of paysites having models on videos to say" hi, i'm 16, hi i'm 14".......

Mr.Fiction · 06-14-2003, 04:19 AM

These are quotes from the law that was found unconstitutional:

(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and...

Look familiar?

http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cppa.text.html

Again, I think the website is stupid for what they are doing, and Kimmy seems to be saying they could lose their processing, but there is a difference between real child porn and being stupid.

Pleasurepays · 06-14-2003, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
The Supreme Court has ruled, it's not illegal.

is "Supreme Court" the name of your Russian processor?

demented · 06-14-2003, 04:20 AM

Everyone watch the movie " Bully "

Go read a review on it even....

Mr.Fiction · 06-14-2003, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pleasurepays

is "Supreme Court" the name of your Russian processor?

Yes, anyone who quotes the Supreme Court is a child pornographer now.

Go tell Larry Flynt what you think of him.

Pleasurepays · 06-14-2003, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
These are quotes from the law that was found unconstitutional:

(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and...

Look familiar?

http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cppa.text.html

Again, I think the website is stupid for what they are doing, and Kimmy seems to be saying they could lose their processing, but there is a difference between real child porn and being stupid.

you are still talking about something different. the law has not changed. you are talking about using images of a minor and manipulating images of a minor. that has nothing to do with saying "hi, I'm Cindy and i just turned 13, please come watch me take a cock in all holes"

Mr.Fiction · 06-14-2003, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pleasurepays

you are still talking about something different. the law has not changed. you are talking about using images of a minor and manipulating images of a minor. that has nothing to do with saying "hi, I'm Cindy and i just turned 13, please come watch me take a cock in all holes"

You are still wrong, but I love you anyways.

Here is a comment from the article on the case that I linked to earlier:

The opinion cited several artistically significant instances in which teenage sex was portrayed, including William Shakespeare's play "Romeo & Juliet," and the recent movies "Traffic" and "American Beauty."
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/sc...al.child.porn/

Nothing to do with computers in those cases, which the court specifically cited, when deciding to overturn the law.

The court specifically had problems with the idea that a person pretending to be underage having sex was illegal under the law.

Your turn.

Pleasurepays · 06-14-2003, 04:38 AM

ok.

they are talking about "Computer generated images" - i.e. "virtual pornography"

i was not aware that they abolished the entire Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 if thats what you are saying. as i recall and read (skim) i see that it says what i thought it was about... "computer generated images"

the real magoo · 06-14-2003, 05:06 AM

Lol, who cares..

Scootermuze · 06-14-2003, 05:10 AM

It doesn't really matter what the law says...

They have the 'community standards' deal to fall back on and the 'probable cause' excuse when they come knock on your door, take all of your equipment, arrest you, then break your bank by making you prove to the court that you're innocent.

Ok.. you're innocent.. you win...
You're broke as Hell now, have to move because
of guilt by local news media... but you win...
Guess that'll show em...

crescentx · 06-14-2003, 06:19 AM

Yes, it's stupid, someone wants to get pinched.

New law:

18USC3395:

1) If, in the context or ordinary activities required for living, in said context:

a) An individual obtains pleasure
b) An individual violates the laws of Moses
c) An individual fails self-flagellation for said violations

Said individual shall be sentenced to life in prison without parole.

-doug

Matt 26z · 06-14-2003, 09:27 AM

Suppose someone downloads a video of an 18+ year-old girl claiming to be 16. Then years later a computer repair guy finds it and calls the cops, and the cpu owner can't remember where he got the video. In the end a jury is presented with a porn video of a girl claiming to be 16. What happens then?

The only reason I bring this up is because I was going through some newsgroup archives the other day and came across a story of a guy who was caught with several xxx pics of girls who the police thought where between 16-20 in appearance, but there was no way of knowing who they really where. So they slapped him with a possession of CP charge. He took a plea bargain (fines, cpu taken, sex offender list) because it would have cost $6,000 to have a professional testify what he thought their ages were.

Now just imagine if this guy had been caught with one of the said videos. You can put a professional on the stand all you want. The bottom line is the girl in the video says she's underage. You never know what a jury will do.

This stuff should NOT be spread around for obvious reasons.

Gary · 06-14-2003, 09:31 AM

whoever runs that site has big balls and a small brain

gothweb · 06-14-2003, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
The Supreme Court has ruled, it's not illegal.

Mr.Fiction is right. Simulated child porn is not currently a crime. What the Supremes say goes. There is no victim when someone over 18 says they are 16. While there are people trying to make "virtual child porn" illegal with separate laws.

SleazyDream · 06-14-2003, 09:36 AM

stupid. stupid. stupid.
they DESERVE to have the FBI seize their office and all their equipment for 10 months and go through all their age verification files piece by piece.

RichC · 06-14-2003, 10:16 AM

Prosecutors have a lot of ways to skin a cat.
Obscenity ... another route.
Think about it ... fuck what the midwestern soccer mom thinks ... you're offending folks in the industry lol
painting a big red X on your back ... brilliant
frontline

OY · 06-14-2003, 01:02 PM

Fuckin idiots!

Tipsy · 06-14-2003, 01:05 PM

Seems to be silly season lately. Are these guys related to the freeadultcheck and nightsurfer guys?

xdcdave · 06-14-2003, 01:14 PM

looks like it's fixed now.. I dont hear it.

Kimmykim · 06-14-2003, 01:17 PM

Stupid is right. It's not like they couldn't have used 18 in their trailer as her age... that's not old enough to drink either.

Which brings up another point, if she's not actually 21 then they are contributing to the delinquency of a minor as well, which is a misdemeanor in all states and in certain cases becomes a felony in others.

Mr.Fiction · 06-14-2003, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by xdcdave
looks like it's fixed now.. I dont hear it.

It says it on the screen, in a graphic and also shows a fake driver's license with DOB as 1987.

Has anyone contacted these guys and told them to fix that shit?

Wiseman · 06-14-2003, 01:19 PM

LOL!! Well you can still see they SAY she is 16!!! As well as the fucking stupid ID! Says the same thing!

Twe Russ · 06-14-2003, 01:22 PM

i found it funny, bitch thought there was gonna be a black snake
up her ass, and all she got was to nibble on a fuckin blunt clip.

Thats fuckin funny, as far as legal goes, it aint for us to worry
about, as long as you aint the guy running it, dont fuckin cry.

Kimmykim · 06-14-2003, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Twe Russ
i found it funny, bitch thought there was gonna be a black snake
up her ass, and all she got was to nibble on a fuckin blunt clip.

Thats fuckin funny, as far as legal goes, it aint for us to worry
about, as long as you aint the guy running it, dont fuckin cry.

Stupid is as stupid does.

None of our traffic will go to a program that can't manage to get its shit together.

XYCash · 06-14-2003, 01:52 PM

Chapo from adultinternetlaw.com quoted from a post on Ynot:

?If a photographer license a photo set to a producer (could by a website producer or a magazine) without adding context could that sale be deemed distribution of obscenity??

The answer really depends on the approach of the prosecutor. If the images are the key to the prosecution, then the photographer will face a fairly high exposure risk because the photographer created the images. For instance, if the prosecutor claims that pictures of youngish looking 18 year olds is obscene because the girls are made to appear like minors, then there is very good chance the photographer will be brought into the criminal action.

06-14-2003, 02:02 AM	#1
Wiseman Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 2,990	Wtf!!! Cp Or What!!!!!!!! OK I am going through sites looking for different sites to promote and I come across this tour!!!! http://www.boygirlbang.com/visitors/...railers/68.wmv Now Watch this shit and listen carefully!! well not to careful you dont have to!!! I dont care if it is fake it is still Illegal!!! This is fucked up and Deserves to be shut fucking down!!!! Rot in hell!! __________________ []E-mail: [email protected][]ICQ: 109726012[*]AIM: QbWiseman

06-14-2003, 02:07 AM	#3
Peter Romero Long time no happy ending Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: San Diego CA Posts: 10,578	They popped Max on that line. Even though he got out of it, it cost him BANK in legal fees. __________________ POVCash [email protected] See them all here: http://www.Petergirls.com

06-14-2003, 02:58 AM	#8
BRISK Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 12,240	Playing with fire __________________ I post on GFY so that when people ask me what I do, I can tell them that I work with the mentally retarded.

06-14-2003, 03:46 AM	#17
BRISK Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 12,240	Anyone seen the movie "Kids"? __________________ I post on GFY so that when people ask me what I do, I can tell them that I work with the mentally retarded.

06-14-2003, 04:06 AM	#24
kmanrox aka K-Man Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: The Gutter Posts: 29,295	highly illegal and stupid at the same time... __________________ Crypto HODLr Crypto mining Angel investor

06-14-2003, 02:04 AM	#2
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	That's ridiculous. I don't care if she is 30, do not fucking say she is 16.

06-14-2003, 02:07 AM	#4
thekebie Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: The Hood of Burquitlam, BC Posts: 1,046	but didn't they have the funny fat guy who went off as soon as he got touched video.

06-14-2003, 02:10 AM	#5
stevecore Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,130	had to watch it twice to catch it... now theyre gonna take a closer look at reality sites cuz of this guy's fuckup. totally wrong.

06-14-2003, 02:18 AM	#6
Number1Thumb Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 1,135	Its totally wrong, fix it you jerk off's. On another note WTF with the brotha who cant get up his 4.5" cock. AND he's on a video. TRY AGAIN

06-14-2003, 03:06 AM	#9
shermo Guest Posts: n/a	Good lord. Not only is it there, but it's emphasized! Bastards

06-14-2003, 03:08 AM	#10
Gutterboy So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Dis Posts: 4,751	Dayum, thats pretty bold.

06-14-2003, 03:27 AM	#11
Mr.Fiction Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Free Speech Land Posts: 9,484	It is not illegal in the United States. Stupid, but not illegal. Child porn means people under 18 involved in porn. It doesn't mean people pretending to be under 18. Ever hear of the Constitution or the Supreme Court? How about movies like American Pie? It's a stupid move by the site, because they are asking for trouble. However, to be child porn, there has to be a child involved.

06-14-2003, 03:31 AM	#12
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	What it does mean is that it's not acceptable under Visa's brand image regulations.

06-14-2003, 03:38 AM	#14
Jayson Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: CZ Posts: 554	Its not illegal in the US. Check out Ken Park - mainstreamish movie, actual sex scene, actors playing minors. (btw, the same movie would be illegal in Australia - Ken Park was just refused classification and cant be shown here because of the actual sex with actors portraying minors - if it was simulated it would be ok) Having said that .... I still think its wrong

06-14-2003, 03:46 AM	#16
Pleasurepays BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I live in a pile of boogers Posts: 11,913	ok. i am going to go rent "ass fucked 13 year olds." - oh wait. i cant. there is no such thing. you are talking about "virtual child pornography" where the image is manipulated to simulate a child. i am too tired to go look up the details but i am 99.9% sure that you absolutely cannot say that a girl is underage and then show her in sexually explicit poses or acts. [ps... how do i get that new car smell again?]

06-14-2003, 03:54 AM	#20
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,515	even if it's not illegal, still its fucked up and shouldn't happen in first place.

06-14-2003, 04:11 AM	#25
Mr.Fiction Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Free Speech Land Posts: 9,484	The Supreme Court has ruled, it's not illegal.

06-14-2003, 04:15 AM	#26
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,515	yes very stupid,what we need now is a couple of paysites having models on videos to say" hi, i'm 16, hi i'm 14".......

06-14-2003, 04:19 AM	#27
Mr.Fiction Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Free Speech Land Posts: 9,484	These are quotes from the law that was found unconstitutional: (B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and... Look familiar? http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cppa.text.html Again, I think the website is stupid for what they are doing, and Kimmy seems to be saying they could lose their processing, but there is a difference between real child porn and being stupid.

06-14-2003, 04:20 AM	#29
demented Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Cincinnati Ohio Posts: 2,388	Everyone watch the movie " Bully " Go read a review on it even....

06-14-2003, 04:38 AM	#33
Pleasurepays BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I live in a pile of boogers Posts: 11,913	ok. they are talking about "Computer generated images" - i.e. "virtual pornography" i was not aware that they abolished the entire Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 if thats what you are saying. as i recall and read (skim) i see that it says what i thought it was about... "computer generated images"

06-14-2003, 05:06 AM	#34
the real magoo So Fucking Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: EU Posts: 1,637	Lol, who cares..

06-14-2003, 05:10 AM	#35
Scootermuze Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 4,513	It doesn't really matter what the law says... They have the 'community standards' deal to fall back on and the 'probable cause' excuse when they come knock on your door, take all of your equipment, arrest you, then break your bank by making you prove to the court that you're innocent. Ok.. you're innocent.. you win... You're broke as Hell now, have to move because of guilt by local news media... but you win... Guess that'll show em...

06-14-2003, 06:19 AM	#36
crescentx Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 317	Yes, it's stupid, someone wants to get pinched. New law: 18USC3395: 1) If, in the context or ordinary activities required for living, in said context: a) An individual obtains pleasure b) An individual violates the laws of Moses c) An individual fails self-flagellation for said violations Said individual shall be sentenced to life in prison without parole. -doug __________________ XYCash International Gay Affiliate Program

06-14-2003, 09:27 AM	#37
Matt 26z So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: ¤ª"˜¨๑۩۞۩๑¨˜"ª¤ Posts: 18,481	Suppose someone downloads a video of an 18+ year-old girl claiming to be 16. Then years later a computer repair guy finds it and calls the cops, and the cpu owner can't remember where he got the video. In the end a jury is presented with a porn video of a girl claiming to be 16. What happens then? The only reason I bring this up is because I was going through some newsgroup archives the other day and came across a story of a guy who was caught with several xxx pics of girls who the police thought where between 16-20 in appearance, but there was no way of knowing who they really where. So they slapped him with a possession of CP charge. He took a plea bargain (fines, cpu taken, sex offender list) because it would have cost $6,000 to have a professional testify what he thought their ages were. Now just imagine if this guy had been caught with one of the said videos. You can put a professional on the stand all you want. The bottom line is the girl in the video says she's underage. You never know what a jury will do. This stuff should NOT be spread around for obvious reasons.

06-14-2003, 09:31 AM	#38
Gary Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Kimmykims couch Posts: 6,110	whoever runs that site has big balls and a small brain __________________ Up to 35$ per join...!

06-14-2003, 09:36 AM	#40
SleazyDream I'm here for SPORT Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phone # (401) 285-0696 Posts: 41,470	stupid. stupid. stupid. they DESERVE to have the FBI seize their office and all their equipment for 10 months and go through all their age verification files piece by piece. __________________ This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog! Now read without the word dog.

06-14-2003, 10:16 AM	#41
RichC Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: by ocean Posts: 368	Prosecutors have a lot of ways to skin a cat. Obscenity ... another route. Think about it ... fuck what the midwestern soccer mom thinks ... you're offending folks in the industry lol painting a big red X on your back ... brilliant frontline __________________ I brought the flutes this time Last edited by RichC; 06-14-2003 at 10:43 AM..

06-14-2003, 01:02 PM	#42
OY Industry Pioneer Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA/EU/ASIA Posts: 5,401	Fuckin idiots! __________________ Around since 1997, and the company that introduced "Cascading Billing" in MPA3® Affiliate Management and Tracking Software Outsourcing With A Norwegian Twist - NordBits - Inquire within!

06-14-2003, 01:05 PM	#43
Tipsy Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: See sig Posts: 6,989	Seems to be silly season lately. Are these guys related to the freeadultcheck and nightsurfer guys? __________________ Ignorance is never bliss.

06-14-2003, 01:14 PM	#44
xdcdave Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: North East Posts: 1,911	looks like it's fixed now.. I dont hear it. __________________

06-14-2003, 01:17 PM	#45
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	Stupid is right. It's not like they couldn't have used 18 in their trailer as her age... that's not old enough to drink either. Which brings up another point, if she's not actually 21 then they are contributing to the delinquency of a minor as well, which is a misdemeanor in all states and in certain cases becomes a felony in others.

06-14-2003, 01:19 PM	#47
Wiseman Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 2,990	LOL!! Well you can still see they SAY she is 16!!! As well as the fucking stupid ID! Says the same thing! __________________ []E-mail: [email protected][]ICQ: 109726012[*]AIM: QbWiseman

06-14-2003, 01:22 PM	#48
Twe Russ Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: NYC Posts: 3,493	i found it funny, bitch thought there was gonna be a black snake up her ass, and all she got was to nibble on a fuckin blunt clip. Thats fuckin funny, as far as legal goes, it aint for us to worry about, as long as you aint the guy running it, dont fuckin cry. __________________ Contact information - ICQ: 7.9.0.3.0.0 · AIM: no roach · E-Mail: roachito \|\| @ \|\| gmail \|\| . \|\| com [Friend Finder - Geo Targeting & Incredible Site Ratio] - [Credit Card Traffic - Make $65 Per Join]

06-14-2003, 01:52 PM	#50
XYCash Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: here and there Posts: 582	Chapo from adultinternetlaw.com quoted from a post on Ynot: ?If a photographer license a photo set to a producer (could by a website producer or a magazine) without adding context could that sale be deemed distribution of obscenity?? The answer really depends on the approach of the prosecutor. If the images are the key to the prosecution, then the photographer will face a fairly high exposure risk because the photographer created the images. For instance, if the prosecutor claims that pictures of youngish looking 18 year olds is obscene because the girls are made to appear like minors, then there is very good chance the photographer will be brought into the criminal action. __________________ XYCash Gay Affiliate Programs - Making Money For Webmasters Since 1999 - click here to sign up