and for the record I would still work with them based on the content I saw

totaly harmless and innocent

It was on a porn site - Im still shocked that people here, of all places, dont get it.

i agree the pics themselves werent cp but its about context. Would you visit an adult video store with "artistic" pictures of naked children on the walls and the stores name was " forbidden ages "

cmon now.. lets be realistic

Because "inserter pissed off poster name here" said it's not art.

Then several said if you mix it with adult pictures it's all porn. :1orglaugh So these stock photo sites that have adult nudes, young nudes, and pictures of airplanes are CP pushers now?

Does Met even have a sexually explicit image on their site? I've never seen one.

I don't think anybody would see anything wrong with that - but I'd be very surprised if you had a picture of your son as a 9 or 10 year old naked on the wall and sent it to family and friends......

I was a met member before I knew anything about HTML and to me the whole damn site has always been ART the colors the lighting everything

maybe slightly erotic but art nonetheless

Those Ivory soap commercials always offended me

I write letters to the government everytime a diaper commercial comes on. Sick fuckers and their nudity!

Id shut the fuck up if I was you....

I will not let this be watered down because GFY cant get its act together as usual. Thats the way the game is played here - not this time.

Its the one subject that is untouchable - as it should be.

you have a point , its hard to draw a line . personally the pics although "artsy" didnt seem to serve any artistic purpose , but thats only in my opinion of art.. i think the line is fairly safe where its at without any further clarification.. as long as people dont cross that line and start promoting both together ..

Whats funny is this, I dont know how many here realize it or not but America really is in the middle of a culture war. The republicans have the court and the presidents office. Its times like this when people with half a brain all over the US need to come together and fight for our collective rights

as soon as the gain one victory in any area...............slippery slope

good bye porn

I dont agree with a ton of shit but I will not go against it for the simple fact of the matter is I repect each and every persons right to exspress themselvs etc etc

now I dont agree at all with child porn but I also dont agree wit loping every single picture of some kid you find offensive into that same category EFFECT

ART AND PORN ARE TWO SEPRATE THING

I make this stand here for ART all forms of art please do not associate it with other degrading activities

thanks

Do it all the way man, don't be a pussy. I've seen Met-Art on pretty much every big established TGP, link list, free site, etc. Stop doing business with them. Hell if you made any money off of them SEND IT BACK! Don't work with anyone that works with them and don't work with anyone that works with anyone that works with them. I don't know who processes their cards but don't ever use them or anyone that does etc. If you're going to take a stand do it right and do it all the way. :2 cents:

when a pedo looks at these artistic pictures it feeds his addiction. it may make him want to see more, or see a real child. if a sick person is turned on by looking at dogs or trees, this too may feed their problem. but if they look for beast porn or go fuck a tree, no one is really hurt. but if they go and look for cp or a real girl, that is a problem in which children really are hurt.

i do however understand your point, and it is well taken.

In the United sates we're suppose to have something called due process! To say just throw someone in jail without a trial is not what our constitution is about.

Different countries have different laws. What's legal in one place may well earn you you a jail sentence in another. I did not see the "art" in question, so I can't judge. The Internet clouds the issue for sure.

Mixing porn and art of nude children seems very unwise.

My parents took pictures of both my sister and me in the bathtub. Gee. we were nude. Was that porn? No, just embarrassing.

Met-art is known for erotic art. The key word here is erotic. IF you make that underage person seem erotic, is there a problem. Guess so in the US.

Am I going to trash met-art? Not now. Am I going to review the program? Of course.

Ok everyone - its ok to push CP because everyone else does.

Well Im glad we can all see where you are coming from.

Don't even start that line of bullshit. Anyone that has a brain can see right through it.

My only question to them, and it had better get answered quickly, is if this statement from this page http://www.met-art.com/disclaimer2.htm is correct: "The models, actresses and other persons that appear in any visual depiction appearing or otherwise contained in this Website (MET-ART.com) were over the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of the creation of such"

I find it in extremely poor taste for them to even link to underage nude art books (if they have done so); regardless of whether anyone supports this form of art or not existing on its own it absolutely does not belong on a site that is being actively promoted through porn venues. If they simply had text links to amazon.com for this at least that is consistent with their disclaimer (though I would still find it disturbing). However if they had those type of images on their site then how can anyone trust that statement?

So MET-Art, what happened and what is going on here? Waiting for your reply.

Today all the arseholes around here will learn the word CONTEXT.

1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning.
2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.

An Ivory Snow commercial isn't CP because of (you know the word now) CONTEXT.

An art picture of a 10 year old nude is (the theory goes) art because of the CONTEXT.

A picture of a 10 year old nude in the middle of a porn site would be CP because of context.

Selling a child nude art book in the middle of a porn site is a really bad idea because of context.

Work with it guys and girls.

Alex

One has to take them at their word until proven otherwise. I didn't see the art in question.

No you do not. There are other webmasters here saying that there were image links of underage kids on the site. These same links now go to a 404 page which just increases suspicion.

It would be nice to think that no one would risk something so stupid as putting an underage image on their website that is making lots of money from perfectly legal content, but that would be naive. People do stupid shit frequently; hopefully MET-Art isn't one of them, but they haven't yet responded to any of these threads that I know of and the mods here have seen them and no doubt other industry assosciates have mentioned something about it to them - and all we've seen so far is the silent removal of some pages with no public reply.

I am definitely not saying that they are guilty of anything here but their silence in this matter is very troubling, and when it comes to this type of stuff I find it best to err on the side of caution.

I was gonna stay outta this but no one is saying it. WHAT THE FUCK is artistic about photographing a child NUDE... Art is meant to evoke emotion... Now if were talking about 5 or under then yes it can be cute... There is a clear line when the term Artistic begins to cross over into the perverted and I think some of them are knowingly crossing that line. What was the name of the Book, Forbidden Ages... Come one, in this day and age people, lets get a fucking clue. I am a father of children between the ages of 9 and 13 and find no reason that photographing children of this age even in the context of being Artistic to be appropriate or needed. If one person can give a solid purpose for the artistic necessity of Nude Children I sure would like to hear it. Simply put, there is none...

MET-Art Speaks
 

I am the lawyer for MET-Art. Credentials are below.

I have reviewed thousands of images and the associated identification documents for MET-Art. MET-Art is in full compliance with 18 U.S.C. section 2257. There are no images which are of persons under eighteen years old.

It is the easiest thing in the world to make an accusation that a website or other content producer is distributing child pornography. That is especially true in an anonymous forum like this. But the law is quite different than the mob, or a malicious, anonymous liar claims.

Distribution of child pornography is a crime when it is _knowing and deliberate_. If you distribute a photograph of a model, when you believe in good faith that s/he is 18 years old, but the photographer provided you with false documentation and related assurances, you have committed no crime. I have reviewed the documentation. There is not only no reason to believe any of the models are underage, there are thousands of documents supporting that the models are of age.

If the accuser actually had information that any model were underage, (a) they would turn it over to the Feds or other reporting agency, or (b) specify which model or photoset they believe depicts an underage person. Why would someone who had ?proof? satisfy themselves with defaming MET-Art? If they were as hostile as the postings suggest, why alert MET-Art? Why not just be a Federal snitch?

It makes sense to post a child pornography allegation here only if you are lying. Otherwise, if you are hostile, rat them out and if you are neutral, tip off the management. If you have nothing but malice, all you can do is to post vicious lies, confident that some people always believe the worst.

Regarding the static about the book, years ago MET-Art linked book sales through Amazon.com. MET-Art sold no books itself. Someone fetched inactive pages. The links have not been active on the live site in years. If there was questionable content in any of those books, Amazon is the one that sold them.

MET-Art has the highest end nude photography, and outstanding documentation of legal age. It is inevitable a jealous competitor or a jilted photographer seizes on the environmental paranoia and accuses the best of being the worst. The questions are: 1. Are you all going to fall for it? 2. Who are you going to turn to when some anonymous posting says the same thing about you?

JEFFREY J. DOUGLAS is a Santa Monica lawyer, representing all segments of the adult entertainment industry since 1982. He is Chair of the Board of Directors of the Free Speech Coalition, the trade association of the adult entertainment industry and Chairman Emeritus of the First Amendment Lawyers Association. A nationally recognized spokesperson for the adult entertainment industry, as well as an expert witness, Mr. Douglas appears regularly as a media commentator, and on invitation, has testified before Congress. He is the author of numerous magazine articles.

Thank you for clearing this up.

Mr Douglas, the cache date on that page as posted was in 2005... that would not be years ago. Is there anything else in your post you would care to correct?

The cache date could be from an hour ago, that has nothing to do with when the page was made. Anything else you want to knit pick about?

lets cut the shit .. we arent asking about legal advice so your opinion is not valid nor warranted.

Your trying to dodge the validity of the accusation by clouding it with your own lawyer drivel..

why dont we cut to the chase,, regardless of the "inactivity" of the links in question , the site has children nude on it . PERIOD it wasnt depictions, or an anonymous poster . I SAW THEM on MET-ART.COM it wasnt "maybe" or a thubmnail it was an obvious child.. so dont bother trying to cloud the issue here..

We realise you may have a legal right to display such images , it DOESNT mean we have to accept it or promote it..

The mere fact you trying to avoid the issue instead of taking a hard stance speaks volumes. i suggest you reword your statements to reflect the seriousness of the problem..

YOU had naked pictures of underage girls on your website , this is wrong , admit its wrong and it wont happen again , thats all people want to hear..

It's such an easy high horse to climb on without all the facts.
Dont look like a dumb ass moral crusader and run off at the keyboard untill the facts are in.

ok heres a "fact" for you.. or i'm just a malicious person with a grudge

the met-art.com site had pictures of young obviously underage girls nude on it.. thats afact

If they where there I never saw them. How long where up?
can you screen shot the cache?

This hardly seems the appropriate place for an officer of the court to respond. You of course have your rights under the first amendment. You also have an obligation to your client. Your choice.

I did not see the art in question. there are appropriate places to file a complaint. I do not think that gfy is the the appropriate place to debate the topic now, so I suggest ending the thread and taking the issue to the appropriate forum (ASACP for example). Discussion here presents possible harm to Met-Art whether deserved or not.

Chad, the question isn't when the page was made, the question is when is the page up? Google can't cache stuff that isn't on a server, now can they?

Proof in the pudding by an impartial 3rd party (google) the page existed and was cached in 2005 for sure... and apparently some people could still access the page and see the images very recently, based on what has been mentioned here.

As a Canadian, I would think you would be even a little more sensitive to this issue, considering what our laws are like.

Alex

I WAS joking. Despite that, it gets boring listening to lame defenses and claims of free speech where "art" is claimed and this involves images of children related to porn sites - they just don't mix.

It's not just a legal issue, but a moral one.

I'd be first in line if there was a genuine defense, but this, along with other alleged "artistic adult sites" with images of children is simply pandering to pedos and under the guise of "education" (remember sexeducation?) or "art".

Totally agree!

It IS a bit embarassing eh? We all got that baggage parents inflict on us :winkwink:

Agree and not just in the US - there are many places where this could be illegal. It's too dubious an area to mix with "adult" even after a load of opinions from lawyers. I'll stick to plain vanilla porn and argue the morality of that instead. :winkwink:

I have been telling you people for almost a year now that they have children in their 1999-2001 archives but nobody fucking listened. When someone from MET denied it I offered to show him where it was just tog ive the benefit of the doubt that maybe he didn;t realize it was still there but he became hush hush and that was it. He claimed he couldnt see it in his LOCALY archived site files so I offered to show it to him on the site itself if he would just provide a temporary pass.

While the images are not CP the images are children regardless.

Porn and children don't mix.. so I stay away from them. I suggest you all do as well until the images are removed unless you like mixing children with porn promotions.

Of course your are a malicious person with a grudge Smokey and Jeffrey D obviously "knows" it as well :1orglaugh

I'm gonna take your hand and treat you to an test at the opticians cos I'm sure Jeffrey reckons you must have saw pictures of 40 year old busty MILF's and just thought you saw pictures of young obviously underage girls.

Ain't fantasies wonderful man? :winkwink:

the previous 3 ppl in this trhead joined in octobers.

interesting fact

iwantchixx the most interesting fact to that is they all posted today too. Hmmm

Interesting choice of thread for your first post

Thumbler first thread post yes, first time reading GFY no. But definately interesting thread.

"Distribution of child pornography is a crime when it is _knowing and deliberate_. If you distribute a photograph of a model, when you believe in good faith that s/he is 18 years old, but the photographer provided you with false documentation and related assurances, you have committed no crime. I have reviewed the documentation. There is not only no reason to believe any of the models are underage, there are thousands of documents supporting that the models are of age."

So is this how you fucks do it? You use russian photographers to shoot underage girls and provide forged documents? Is this what is going on?

btw Jeffery are you the same scum lawyer they had a few years ago that helped them with this for them... a direct quoting of MET ARTS statement that was on their site in 2002...

"None of the images on this site are illegal. This has been determined by our attorney, whose is an expert in the law pertaining to the First Amendment and images of nudity. MET contains images of nudity only. There are no images of hard-core sexual conduct, i.e., masturbation, intercourse of any type, oral-genital contact, or sadomasochism. There is no obscenity or child pornography to be found on MET. In order for an image to be obscene, it must violate contemporary community standards, appeal to a prurient interest in sex, and be devoid of any artistic, scientific, political or other social value. Nudity alone is not enough for an image to be illegal, as the Supreme Court has stated on many occasions. "Spread" shots of adult women (at least 18 years of age) are legal, as they do not violate contemporary community standards anywhere in the United States. In order for an image to be "child pornography," it must depict a person under the age of 18 (a minor) engaged in "sexually explicit conduct" (i.e., the types of hard-core conduct described above), or a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area." Nudity alone is also not enough to make an image "child pornography." U.S. v. 264 Magazines (Jeunes et naturels) (Third Circuit) There are many examples of legal images of nude minors in the United States, for example, in books by Jock Sturges, David Hamilton, Sally Mann and Graham Ovenden, among others. An image of a minor depicts a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" when (1) the minor's genitals or pubic area are the focus of the image, (2) the setting of the depiction is sexually suggestive or a place where sexual activity generally takes place (like a bedroom); (3) the pose or attire of the minor is unnatural or inappropriate given the age of the minor; (4) part of the clothing of the minor is intentionally arranged so as to expose the crotch area; (5) the minor expresses a "come-on" look denoting a willingness to engage in sexual activity; or (6) the image is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer. United States v. Dost. In United States v. Villard, the Third Circuit stated that "more than one factor must be present in order to establish lasciviousness." Villard and other cases suggest that whether an image is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer should be determined from the intent of the photographer, never the viewer. In those few i mages on MET which may depict models who have not yet reached the age of 18 (there are no images of children posted here), we are extremely careful not to run afoul of these guidelines. You will find that all images on MET of models who are not yet 18 are tasteful and artistic, well within the bounds of legal propriety. In conclusion, you, the viewer, can rest assured that we have carefully reviewed the photographs we are posting -- not just to keep ourselves safe under the law, but to keep you safe as well.
MET Staff"

flat out , thats a bold faced lie. there may not be NOW because you removed it , but if your trying to say me and several other people didnt see OBVIOUSLY underage nude children on met-art.com server , then your trying to bullshit the wrong crowd.

Nobody is going to believe you , sorry but i think anyone with half a brain ( even those who may not like me ) aren't going to accuse me of lying about it. I have no agenda, you have plenty of agenda, dopnt avoid the subject just explain why the images were there , apologize for them ever being there , and promise that pictures like that wont be on the site ever , and then you have just saved face you may even earn some respect , otherwise people are going to see thru the facade.