see sig..

50....,....

ahh shitttt...

U lost, bitch. :321GFY

yea, I got wojowned, shit happens :(

preach it brother Mutt

Things you don't want to say when you are on trial.

"Your honor what's the difference, it's only a few months. She's almost 18."

"I thought 16 was legal your honor, it is in france."

"She's wearing clothes, they are just a little sheer"

" I think my work is very artistic."

"It's not porn, it's a non nude site"

"I've seen worse than this on a lotta sites. Here let me show you I have them saved on my computer."

"She said she was 18, and I trusted her"

Displacement huh? well you asked the moronic question, and i directed the slam at you. Then a bunch of people argeed as well that you are wrong in the head for even having to ask. So where am i displaced?

that kind of shit turns my stomach

Exactly my thoghts. Amen!

Omg .

In some States if you talk to a girl under 18 about nude modeling you have violated a law. So planning to shoot a girl 3 months before her 18th birthday could be a very bad idea. Best thing to do is when they come to you is to say sorry you must be 18 and show them the door.


Just my 2 cents...

A minor cannot legally enter into an enforceable contract alone ( model release form ). A minor must have a parent sign the contract, or model release form. Parents don't sign contracts to soft porn sites pimping out their kids.

Anyone who says it is even close to o.k., or legal, to film/photograph kids under 18 in a sexual manner -- it's not! It just takes you 5 minutes to do a quick search on google under minor legal contract and educate yourself.

If a minor signs the model release they can retract it at any time by claiming their minority status and seek restitution for damages through the courts.. not only from the site owner, but those who promote the site and make any income on their content.

Being a parent I hope any of you guys doing this, promoting it, or contemplating it, think again and don't do it. If nothing else, at a minimum, make your standards for doing business based on the law, it's better for everyone that way, you wont end up in jail, and minors wont be exploited. :pimp

Dammit! you beat me to it!


;)

J.

From http://www.adultweblaw.com :

5. United States v Knox:

In Knox, a man who had previously been convicted of receiving child pornography through the mail ordered video tapes (by mail) of girls between the ages of ten and seventeen who, in the Court's words, "were dancing or gyrating in a fashion not natural for their age." The girls wore bikini bathing suits, leotards, or underwear - none of the girls in the videos was nude. The videos were set to music, and it appeared that someone off-camera was directing the girls. The photographer videotaped the girls dancing, and zoomed in on each girl's pubic area for an extended period of time. Knox was prosecuted under United States Child Pornography laws.

Legal counsel for Knox argued that "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" meant that the girls had to be nude - wearing clothing meant that that genitals and pubic area were clearly not exhibited. The Court disagreed and held that there was no nudity requirement in the statute: "the statutory term "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area," as used in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(E), does not contain any requirement that the child subject's genitals or pubic area be fully or partially exposed or discernible through his or her opaque clothing."



:pimp

:1orglaugh sorry i had to laugh at it.

Seems like this should just be common moral knowledge, however we still have someone on here who needs to ask if its cool. Scary indeed.