No comments on the ruling about non-nude sites? - GoFuckYourself.com

DWB · 10-09-2006, 07:07 PM

I'm surprised I dont see 100000 threads about it.

babymaker · 10-09-2006, 07:08 PM

what ruling?? you mean Cmodels?? knox decision or something new?? i missed it

Dagwolf · 10-09-2006, 07:08 PM

I didn't see it. What's up?

CaptainHowdy · 10-09-2006, 07:09 PM

Don't see much NN peeps around here...

CaptainHowdy · 10-09-2006, 07:10 PM

btw I LOVE YOU DWB.

VexXxed · 10-09-2006, 07:10 PM

NN site owners can't play online poker anymore?

DWB · 10-09-2006, 07:12 PM

It was a good ruling about the sites that post kids NN.

http://www.********.com/read.aspx?ID=19358

marketsmart · 10-09-2006, 07:13 PM

thanks for the link, reading...

Lacerto · 10-09-2006, 07:14 PM

Fuck non nudes anyway.

beemk · 10-09-2006, 07:17 PM

thats a good thing. if they'ra making a site with half naked underage girls for the purpose of people jerking off to it, it should be illegal.

Libertine · 10-09-2006, 07:18 PM

Here's a nice flawed argument:

Quote:

Assistant U.S. District Attorney Karin Fojtik said Congress made it clear that nudity does not have to be present to consider something pornographic.

“The big difference is these are children,” Fojtik said.

So not only the legality, but also the definition of pornography changes according to the subjects involved? That's bizarre...

I don't like those NN sites, but this decision just doesn't seem to make sense.

Quote:

According to charging documents, one photo of a 9-year-old girl shows her dressed in “black stiletto pumps, a black lace thong, black bra, and black jacket” sitting on a dining room table.

If that's kiddy porn, then magazines like Maxim and FHM are "normal porn". So are most movies, for that matter, and television series.

babymaker · 10-09-2006, 07:18 PM

i was right

might not be the knox decision i saw someplace else, but same thing....

love the banner under the article:
[IMG]http://www.********.com/images/banners/PaidSponsors/MaxHardcore.jpg[/IMG]

Rui · 10-09-2006, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lacerto

Fuck non nudes anyway.

Yeah rigth....

Wagerboy · 10-09-2006, 07:24 PM

I have never seen one of these "NN Kids" sites. Guess if your not looking for them. They should be banned anyways

Tempest · 10-09-2006, 07:25 PM

Another stupid ruling in the US that opens the door to more prosecutions. The correct way of dealing with this would be to pass an appropriate law.. but of course that would be too close to common sense to ever be an option.

Mutt · 10-09-2006, 07:25 PM

the guy is a lowlife for posing girls that young in sexy outfits and poses but the ruling sounds really bad - mainstream entertainment has been sexualizing underage actresses and singers forever - the law should be applied equally to everybody - if this guy is guilty then so are the record companies who create the images of the teenie bopper divas. i assume this judge would say that there is artistic worth to the mainstream stuff but what about the mainstream modeling industry where girls are 15 and modeling half naked?

basschick · 10-09-2006, 07:27 PM

i hate sites that exploit children that way, but being sexy is NOT pornographic and it seems like what that decision does is widen the definition of pornography. if this definition of pornography stands, women won't be able to wear their regular nightclub attire in public and magazines showing lingerie will be defined as pornographic.

Libertine · 10-09-2006, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

the guy is a lowlife for posing girls that young in sexy outfits and poses but the ruling sounds really bad - mainstream entertainment has been sexualizing underage actresses and singers forever - the law should be applied equally to everybody - if this guy is guilty then so are the record companies who create the images of the teenie bopper divas. i assume this judge would say that there is artistic worth to the mainstream stuff but what about the mainstream modeling industry where girls are 15 and modeling half naked?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

Another stupid ruling in the US that opens the door to more prosecutions. The correct way of dealing with this would be to pass an appropriate law.. but of course that would be too close to common sense to ever be an option.

Those two posts about sum it up.

The law needs to be applied equally to everyone. If current laws don't seem to deliver justice, either new ones need to be made or old ones need to be changed.

We all have gut feelings about sites like these, but judges need to follow the laws, not their guts.

Wagerboy · 10-09-2006, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by basschick

i hate sites that exploit children that way, but being sexy is NOT pornographic and it seems like what that decision does is widen the definition of pornography. if this definition of pornography stands, women won't be able to wear their regular nightclub attire in public and magazines showing lingerie will be defined as pornographic.

Theres a really big difference between 9-10 and 16-17 models in tasteless positions.

Matt 26z · 10-09-2006, 07:38 PM

Figures that this would be coming out of Utah. I understand they are trying to shut down the "teen modeling" paysites, but I don't think they can do it without sweeping innocent photos up into this also. As it is, families are having their kids taken away while authorities investigate a bathtub photo they dropped off at the developer.

If the new standard is that nudity isn't required for CP, then families who take photos of their kids in their underwear could be investigated also.

And another thing... If provacative clothing can be considered CP, then it's time to arrest anyone involved with those child modeling fashion shows. The organizers and the parents who dress their little girls up to look like whores.

StickyGreen · 10-09-2006, 07:43 PM

wtf it's common sense. just don't have little 10 year old girls on your website, regardless if it's porn or not. just steer clear of young ass girls completely and you shouldn't have anything to worry about...

fitzmulti · 10-09-2006, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beemk

thats a good thing. if they'ra making a site with half naked underage girls for the purpose of people jerking off to it, it should be illegal.

I totally agree!

Quote from the article:
"According to charging documents, one photo of a 9-year-old girl shows her dressed in ?black stiletto pumps, a black lace thong, black bra, and black jacket? sitting on a dining room table."

FUCK THAT!
:P

Libertine · 10-09-2006, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StickyGreen

wtf it's common sense. just don't have little 10 year old girls on your website, regardless if it's porn or not. just steer clear of young ass girls completely and you shouldn't have anything to worry about...

So what about sites selling clothes, including underwear, for young girls? What about the homepage of a gymnastics team? What about a family's vacation photos on the beach? What about girls posting vids of themselves dancing in underwear on youtube?

The NN sites need to be taken care of, certainly, but only through actual, specific, clear laws.

10-09-2006, 07:07 PM	#1
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	No comments on the ruling about non-nude sites? I'm surprised I dont see 100000 threads about it.

10-09-2006, 07:08 PM	#2
babymaker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: philly Posts: 4,751	what ruling?? you mean Cmodels?? knox decision or something new?? i missed it __________________ $99mo Hosted CMS From ElevatedX! ICQ 293125596

10-09-2006, 07:08 PM	#3
Dagwolf President of Canada Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Leaving Hell, Entering Limbo Posts: 23,141	I didn't see it. What's up? __________________ Sleep well, and dream of large women.

10-09-2006, 07:09 PM	#4
CaptainHowdy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Happy in the dark. Posts: 93,599	Don't see much NN peeps around here... __________________ Sig Coming Soon

10-09-2006, 07:10 PM	#5
CaptainHowdy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Happy in the dark. Posts: 93,599	btw I LOVE YOU DWB. __________________ Sig Coming Soon

10-09-2006, 07:10 PM	#6
VexXxed Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: What Bitch? Posts: 544	NN site owners can't play online poker anymore? __________________

10-09-2006, 07:12 PM	#7
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	It was a good ruling about the sites that post kids NN. http://www.********.com/read.aspx?ID=19358

10-09-2006, 07:13 PM	#8
marketsmart HOMICIDAL TROLL KILLER Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sunnybrook Institution for the Criminally Insane Posts: 20,419	thanks for the link, reading...

10-09-2006, 07:14 PM	#9
Lacerto Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 362	Fuck non nudes anyway. __________________ All of my adult ventures have failed.

10-09-2006, 07:17 PM	#10
beemk CLICK HERE Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 20,829	thats a good thing. if they'ra making a site with half naked underage girls for the purpose of people jerking off to it, it should be illegal. __________________ I host with Vacares

10-09-2006, 07:18 PM	#12
babymaker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: philly Posts: 4,751	i was right might not be the knox decision i saw someplace else, but same thing.... love the banner under the article: [IMG]http://www.******.com/images/banners/PaidSponsors/MaxHardcore.jpg[/IMG] __________________ $99mo Hosted CMS From ElevatedX!** ICQ 293125596

10-09-2006, 07:24 PM	#14
Wagerboy Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 2,290	I have never seen one of these "NN Kids" sites. Guess if your not looking for them. They should be banned anyways __________________ The Main Program That Makes Me Fucking Money!! Teens Getting Pounded

10-09-2006, 07:25 PM	#15
Tempest Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Location: West Coast, Canada. Posts: 10,217	Another stupid ruling in the US that opens the door to more prosecutions. The correct way of dealing with this would be to pass an appropriate law.. but of course that would be too close to common sense to ever be an option.

10-09-2006, 07:25 PM	#16
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	the guy is a lowlife for posing girls that young in sexy outfits and poses but the ruling sounds really bad - mainstream entertainment has been sexualizing underage actresses and singers forever - the law should be applied equally to everybody - if this guy is guilty then so are the record companies who create the images of the teenie bopper divas. i assume this judge would say that there is artistic worth to the mainstream stuff but what about the mainstream modeling industry where girls are 15 and modeling half naked? __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

10-09-2006, 07:27 PM	#17
basschick Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: el lay, ca usa Posts: 2,540	i hate sites that exploit children that way, but being sexy is NOT pornographic and it seems like what that decision does is widen the definition of pornography. if this definition of pornography stands, women won't be able to wear their regular nightclub attire in public and magazines showing lingerie will be defined as pornographic. __________________ Got Gay and For Women Traffic?

10-09-2006, 07:38 PM	#20
Matt 26z So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: ¤ª"˜¨๑۩۞۩๑¨˜"ª¤ Posts: 18,481	Figures that this would be coming out of Utah. I understand they are trying to shut down the "teen modeling" paysites, but I don't think they can do it without sweeping innocent photos up into this also. As it is, families are having their kids taken away while authorities investigate a bathtub photo they dropped off at the developer. If the new standard is that nudity isn't required for CP, then families who take photos of their kids in their underwear could be investigated also. And another thing... If provacative clothing can be considered CP, then it's time to arrest anyone involved with those child modeling fashion shows. The organizers and the parents who dress their little girls up to look like whores.

10-09-2006, 07:43 PM	#21
StickyGreen . Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 13,076	wtf it's common sense. just don't have little 10 year old girls on your website, regardless if it's porn or not. just steer clear of young ass girls completely and you shouldn't have anything to worry about... __________________ Refer Cam Girls and Take Home 10% of Everything They Make For Life