Did you miss my comment about her being able to be 45 and it still being a grey area? I don't care her age, it's irrelevant really. They're creating the image that she's a young schoolgirl in pigtails, and it's that image that is going to be taken into consideration, not her drivers license. Regardless, people will keep cashing in on shit like this as long as there's cash to be made, so whatever. I wouldn't touch it personally but I know it'll get flocked all over by people who are into it.

hmmm

:glugglug 52 Questionable Models

I've read that stuff, you are somewhat correct I suppose that in some hick town in the midwest they might consider her site sexual explicit but she is over 18 and I doubt any rulings would stand. At any rate this thread was questioning how old the girl was and my reply was she is OVER 18. Not whether the uniform was questionable. Besides that fuck all you hypocritical morons that thing gangbang is more morally acceptable than non nude modeling.

What has been in the news recently? Yea, the gov going after EXTREME photographs, maybe you should be concerned about that too?

Just think how hot that girl will be a year from now! She looks so fresh! :thumbsup

I am greatly concerned about extreme content, and I'm also honestly terrified where they're going to draw the line. Assfuck has said he wants to have Playboy deemed obscene, so that leaves a lot of people in the realm of obscene if he gets his way.

wow she looks younger than me, and i am often told how young i look

Exactly, but this site is NON NUDE so I think even if it pushes the limits of that it is way less obscene than any NUDE site espcially when compared with the more extreme stuff out there.

I realize it's non-nude, but you have to take into consideration how close to nude it is, and how absolutely crazy the current administration is for morality.

And for the record, if that girl did a nude site without the pigtails, I'd push it in a second, she's smoking hot, but I'm personally not willing to do the non-nude thing.

i think if she had her hair and makeup done she could look like the was in her 20s

That is just a crazy argument, so nudity is less obscene than non nude... wtf. If your saying its JUST the pigtails that is just dumb too, we live in america if they charged someone for pigtails that'd be the end of the gov.

You rather promote nude because its safer you are trying to say??

The only thing that can go wrong is if you unknowingly promote an underaged girl.

I rather get caught promoting an underaged nonnude model than an underaged nude model.

What are you trying to say really?

personally, i'm not worried about either.

my argument has nothing to do with morals. i'm simply pointing out lines in current law that could get people in trouble.

like i said, all it takes is one shit disturber. what happens when an affiliate of a site decides to mail out an ad for the site and a bedroom activist gets offended and hahahahahas a letter to their senator or whatever? it's a potential can of worms. at the very least, it's a pain in the ass.

it simply amazes me that people get into this business and invest hundreds if not thousands of dollars on hosting, design and content but don't bother to throw a few hundred dollars to a lawyer to make sure everything is legal.

All it takes is pigtails?

geez im going to try and stay out of this but you have content of pigtail teens.

just because this girl is pretty and looks young doesnt make it any different.

http://www.jactcontent.com/nav/photos/Teens/5

you must HATE http://www.tawneestone.com

South Park is back on>>>>

:thumbsup

It isn't just pigtails, anyone can wear pigtails, but when they're a part of an outfit that's trying to make her look younger (Highschool kind of younger) then you never know what they'll do.

hahaha... are you serious? do you follow the politics of your country at all?

do you remember ashcro<b></b>ft spending a huge wad of cash to put curtains in front of the "Spirit of Justice" statue because her breast was showing?

ALL YOUR BASE.

That isn't exactly a "high school" uniform, actually it is a set for st patricks day so in that context I don't see how it is offensive at all. A skirt and shirt... yep very underage appearing!

she looks 12

All it would take is one angry person to tip them off that someone's producing CP and point them to that gallery and it may be enough to launch an investigation. I'm not saying anything would come of it, or charges would be laid, but have you ever seen the public witch hunt they tend to do when there's suspicion of CP? It's a scary thing to consider, your life is pretty much ruined and that's their goal even if she never shed her clothes.

Anyhow I'm headed to bed, you might think I'm out to lunch or off the wall but honestly I've put a lot of thought into this and I've spent quite a bit of time discussing it with council in the past.

I don't recall the studio that was investigated and raided by the FBI a few years ago in a small town in FLA, but his life is ruined forever because of an angry neighbor, and if I recall correctly, it's because a girl was spotted walking into his studio with pigtails in.

Goodnight.

I just about fell off my chair. She really does look 12 in those pictures. Even if they are legal and the current political enviroment was more stable I wouldn't use them :2 cents:

Do you honestly believe that she looks over 18 in all those pictures?

I don't doubt she's legal. But even if I was holding her driver's license in my hand confirming she was 21, I'd still look at those pictures and think she was underage.

And that's why I'm saying all it takes is one shit disturber to cause a ruckus.

she does look 18, they just make her look young but you can tell she is at least 18.

She is obviously over 20. The legs give it away.

Where the fuck do you people live?? If i wanted to I could imagine she was 16 I suppose but then again I can imagine she is 28 too. I don't really care if your twisted mind thinks she looks under 18 your not the target market your a porn seller that is warped :glugglug

opinions opinions.

id like to see you call Steve Lightspeed a PEDO.

you throw that shit around too easily.

http://tour.tawneestone.com/front.php?r=typein

pigtails and cute schoolgirl outfit.

sometimes people that think like you are more a risk to this industry than the people you claim are *pushing it*

http://www.teenkelly.com her braces must make you want to call ASSCraft yourself, no?

after south park im going to put on an old fashioned horror movie with at least 1 rape scene, and be glad i live in the US where i can still watch such filth.

:thumbsup

you guys must also have never had a fucking hot 19 or 20 year old chick.

my girlfriend looked younger than her at her age, and STILL looks young.

must not have something young and fresh ever if you think this is threatening the industry in some way.

*posting during commercial*

my girlfriend runs around here with pigtails in her white panties half the time, am i fucking PEDO??

oh lord help me repent for my sins.

:1orglaugh

I dunno according to almighty gfy I guess you are a "pedo" whatever that fucking means. Stupid shits can't even spell it or know what it means. I hate when people use a term that essentially means nothing it shows how stupid they really are.

I'm not talking imagination or fantasies. I'm talking reality. IF I were to walk out on the street and poll 100 people, I'm sure the vast majority would think she looks underage in this picture:
http://www.girlgirlkiss.com/tgpsubmi...allery1/01.jpg

This has nothing to do with my twisted mind. I have nothing against the site or the girl. I know she's over 18. I think she's hot. I'd promote her.

I'm just simply pointing out that with the current laws and the current administration, it's playing with fire.

If you think everything is fireproof, surely you'd have no problem sending the above URL to the FBI with an email saying you've heard there's a possibility she's underage?

If everything is as fireproof as you think, surely the FBI would simply reply "She appears to be over 18 and we will not investigate this case further.", right?

she looks under 18 but I would bet that she's over 18

No, why the fuck would I bother the FBI with this crap I'd hope they have something more interesting to work on. I could sue you right now for something you said, doesn't mean it would end up being worth anything though so if that is your argument it is pretty boring.

I'm going to bed, forget you fools

if you're directing that at me, you're obviously not getting the gist of my argument, which disappoints me because i know you're smarter than that.

read this quote from 2256 and tell me exactly what the bolded part means to you:

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

if even one asshole thinks that by dressing the girl as such "conveys the impression" that she's a minor, it can be a pain in the ass for the webmaster. and the incorrect 2257 info wouldn't help either.

now we've determined jact thinks the photo shoot makes the girl appear to be under 18. say he was feeling vengeful and decided to fire off an email to the FBI, an investigation would be launched.

lsure, it probably wouldn't go anywhere, and no charges would be laid, but it wouldn't be any fun either.

you just validated my argument. you could sue me for something i said. it wouldn't go anywhere, but it wouldn't be fun for me either, right? i'd possibly have to hire a lawyer, appear in court, etc, all because you decided to be an ass.

and that's my point.

I haven't finished my drink yet so I popped in to check one last time before bed. I don't think anyone could ever piss me off enough to get the FBI involved, use someone else, like Joe Surfer who chaged back :glugglug

I'm keep trying to reply to this but the server keeps fucking up:/

I didn't know PO Boxes weren't allowed on 2257 pages, but now I do and I will fix that.

I don't want to fight about this, but I do take offense to the "pedo" word being thrown around.

She does many different types of themed sets, it's not all pigtails and school girl outfits. That doesn't even make up a fraction of her total content. And I also see many hardcore porn sites with girls in pigtails getting reamed while the site has "Teens Fucking" all over the place. We don't even the word "teen" on the site. There's nothing that's implied. She's a cute girl with a fresh face that runs a little tease site.

HAHA no that is my point, if you want to worry about this shit all day long go ahead but since I can sue you for no reason just as easily as the FBI can do an investigation why argue about it so much or hahahahaha up threads like this complaining about how one girls site will be the downfall of porn... its all pretty funny.

i know you wouldn't. i was just using your name as an example.

Technically, you don't need a 2257 page at all if your site shows no sexually explicit content.

You seem to have invested quite a bit in your site. I'd suggest investing a couple of hundred dollars in a lawyer to make sure everything is on the up and up.

I may be right with what I'm saying, but I could potentially be wrong as well. I'm not a lawyer :winkwink:

nada.

not directed to <i>anyone</i>

just throwing shit out there during commercials.

this michael jackson south park has me laughing my ass off hehehe.

I'm not worrying about anything. I'm not the owner of the site in question, and I don't live in the USA.

I never said the site is the downfall of porn. I never used the pedo term. I said I think the girl is hot. The site is a good one. Look up the term "devil's advocate".

I'm saying the owner of the site should worry about the site. And if you see his post above, he seems to be heeding some of my advice.

True, but if someone's going to do that, they're going to do that no matter what. Just as easily I could forward any "teen" site to them and claim the same thing. Like you said you can sue anyone for any reason and it is a pain in the ass if it happens, but there's nothing you can do about it if someone does that except beat a weak case in court.

If any proper investigation is done, then hopefully they would investigate it PROPERLY before pressing false charges.

got pics? :Graucho



:winkwink:

CCBill does require a 2257 page on all the sites they bill for, sexually explicit or not. You are right, though, I should've had a lawyer at this point.

She looks damn young to me.

humm I'll say 20 but with school uniform she look like 16 :1orglaugh

nice tits.... short stubby fingers tho

Pedophilia fall under the general category of paraphilias, ?abnormal or unnatural attraction.? Pedophilia is defined as the act or fantasy of engaging in sexual activity with prepubertal children as the preferred or exclusive method of achieving sexual excitement. However, pedophiles vary as to how well they can relate to adults of the opposite sex (usually pedophiles are males, who may be attracted to males, females or both).

thats the key thing you all seem to overlook, sex with a minor is not pedophilia. pedophilia is prepubertal. This girl is far from that.

Second, fire off an email to the FBI? WTF for? cause your pissed you got dissed a little? I actually called the FBI once... why? because one of my employee's had and was distributing major CP from an office computer. You know what they told me? "Well if he is only distibuting it and not selling it there not much we can do"

give me a break the FBI is gonna come running launch an investigation because she looks underage in 1 shot of a set. Are you going to become as anal as Ifriends and tell models they can't even wear pigtails or have a stuffed animal on a bed, or have a paticular posters on the wall because it protrays the model as underage?

Has there been a scream at from people here about webmasters promoting non CP content as being CP content on p2p networks and kazaa? this girl is all over the place as being underage or speculative that she is under age, yet we know she's not because of the prestigious program that produced the content.

http://grab.nastydollars.com/cf/girls/sloan1.jpg
It's been pointed out that potrail of a girl as being underage is illegall by 2257(a); This style of marketing deffinatly consitutes that.

What about all of you that still promote via newsgroup spam to labeled CP news groups.

some of you on this board and the things you choose to get all selfrighteous is just pathetic. You whine because he has 1 picture that 1 person has deemed as the possiblity of portraying a girl underage, but half of you promote programs that promote or totally thrive on the demoralization and cruelty to women as a whole.

I think the only thing worse then someone pushing CP is a hypocryte.

Next time you want to stand up as holyer then thou, dig all the shit our of your own backyard.

some people just don't grow as fast as the majority. I'd bet she is over 18. You can always tell by someone's neck how old she is. With the proper lighting outfit and angle many models could look underage. I still wouldn't be caught with her pics on my computer :1orglaugh

No, you aren't up on the current laws!

The Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that in the United States you cannot be charged with child porn unless there is a real minor invloved.

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

I thought that law was overturned a while back?

I dont think that site is bad at all though. I guess the law can be interpreted in different ways, but the definition in Chapter 110 Section 2256 doesnt say anything about the way the legal models can dress or wear their hair. I think if the site claims they're underage, then it would be unacceptable... But if the law tells legal models what they can/can't wear, how to wear their hair, etc.. That's a huge problem.