Feds Crackdown on Teen sites

[TORTOISE]

All good news for the industry..stopping all this crap may give the xxx biz a better rep over time .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15977010/

[Kimo]

thank god, those sites are sick

[fuhkinglou]

sheesh! Those are some crazy sites... blech...

I actually read about those in the NY Times earlier this year. Surprised it took this long to take down.

Again I say "Blech"

[beemk]

thats good new, i wouldnt put those in the same category as porn sites.

[Roald]

Perfect, never understood they were able to bill though.

[Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE]

amen to justice!

[Shoehorn!]

Originally Posted by beemk

thats good new, i wouldnt put those in the same category as porn sites.

I agree.

[UtahSaints]

about time.. those sites just sick..

[Masterchief]

Oh no, now i guess those sickos will just have to go over to MYSPACE to get their fix now!

[the alchemist]

Woah that's nasty...

[pocketkangaroo]

Those sites are not part of the adult industry. It's important to differentiate that so that people don't correlate the two.

That stuff is child exploitation and has nothing to do with our industry.

[xdcdave]

About fucking time First time I've given props to the feds!

[After Shock Media]

Remember kiddies, they will be tied to us, used as ammo against us, and forever associated with us.
It is how they always spin it, and we have no one to put up counter talking points or industry views on such subjects.

[lucky1]

Originally Posted by TORTOISE

All good news for the industry

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15977010/

Unfortunately I don't think this is good for the industry. Let me explain why.

First off I don't see anything illegal with these sites. Keep in mind I have not personally seen what was on them, nor do I intend to (it's fucking disgusting). I have just read the news stories and heard them say that there was no nudity or Lascivious exploitation of the genital or pubic area.

Now this makes me wonder how they could possibly prosecute this under cp.

Here is the definition of cp from 2256 from 2256

(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 a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

and here is what is defined as sexually explicit conduct

(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, ?sexually explicit conduct? means?
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

Everything in 2256 says that there has to be some sort of nudity or genital contact. After looking at the actual law (2256) I just don't see how this could be prosecuted as a cp case.

Now let me make it clear that I do not support this type of shit at all.
How should this be dealt with then if it shouldn't be prosecuted under 2256?

I have a few ideas.
First find out who is processing the payments for this site and blacklist them. Make a news story on the front page saying this company take payments for these "questionable sites" and I think the public will be outraged with that company (as they should be).
Next do the same thing with the company who hosts their sites.
Finally, I think that maybe someone should "pay a visit" to the person who runs/owns/operates/photographs for these sites and "convince them to stop".

I don't think this is a legal matter under the current laws.
I do however think that it is disgusting and needs to be stopped.

If this is prosecuted under 2256 I think this will mean stricter laws for people that produce legal porn. If they win this case the interpretation of 2256 will be severely broadened and might make it harder for honest people to produce honest porn. This means if you currently run a site that has no nudity at all you could be required to maintain 2257 docs. I think that is going a little too far.

[lucky1]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Those sites are not part of the adult industry. It's important to differentiate that so that people don't correlate the two.

That stuff is child exploitation and has nothing to do with our industry.

True, but unfortunately most people won't see it that way.

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Remember kiddies, they will be tied to us, used as ammo against us, and forever associated with us.
It is how they always spin it, and we have no one to put up counter talking points or industry views on such subjects.

Very true. Just the fact that this story is out will make people want stricter laws for porn in general, even though this has nothing to do with regular porn. I think we all know how effective cp laws are for regular porn. I think instead of making laws for "legal porn producers? they should tighten the penalties for producers of cp. A public execution would be nice.

[CyberHustler]

fuckin preteen shit

[Webby]

OK... You have valid points lucky1 and it remains for the prosecution to present a valid case. It appears from that news clip they propose to show that the defendants ?transport child pornography in interstate commerce? and it remains to be seen what evidence they may present to substantiate that allegation.

Despite all laws, there is a judgement, more a moral one, to be made by webmasters as to whether they would operate websites depicting children - clothed or not.

I'd be at the top of the queue in defending genuine stuff on valid grounds, but can't remotely see how this is valid. It is clear from the imaging that the websites are pandering to a pedo element (and, nasty me, suspect the biz model can often be to use these sites as "feeders" to other stuff) and using the "pedo world" keywords to attract traffic.

As a moral judgement, this stuff is utter shit from the gutter and better they are wiped off the net by whatever means. "Phoney pedo" sites are pandering to a very large, but perverse element of society and there are far more serious issues underneath and involving actual abuse of children.

The defendants made their judgement - the time has come to defend that (and chances are some lawyer will present a reasonable defense), but whether a jury convicts or not - they need to be wiped off the map. Webby's law applies

[RF_Erick]

Good riddance.

[Mr.Right - Banned For Life]

its about time that they did something about this.

[thebossxxx]

these sites are definately not part of our industry...but the laws used against these sick pervs can affect us all..

[MrPinks]

I have to agree with you and Lucky1 on this subject. This will not turn out good for us and it will definitely be linked to us from the media. I have a bad feeling that online porn will become illegal in the US by the time Bush is out of office.

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Remember kiddies, they will be tied to us, used as ammo against us, and forever associated with us.
It is how they always spin it, and we have no one to put up counter talking points or industry views on such subjects.

[biftek]

not that i support CP , but pick up a kmart or target brochure and look at some of the poses and clothing that the kids wear in them
but no of course not , no one will touch those multi-million dollar chains

[lucky1]

Originally Posted by Webby

OK... You have valid points lucky1 and it remains for the prosecution to present a valid case. It appears from that news clip they propose to show that the defendants ?transport child pornography in interstate commerce? and it remains to be seen what evidence they may present to substantiate that allegation.

Despite all laws, there is a judgement, more a moral one, to be made by webmasters as to whether they would operate websites depicting children - clothed or not.

I'd be at the top of the queue in defending genuine stuff on valid grounds, but can't remotely see how this is valid. It is clear from the imaging that the websites are pandering to a pedo element (and, nasty me, suspect the biz model can often be to use these sites as "feeders" to other stuff) and using the "pedo world" keywords to attract traffic.

As a moral judgement, this stuff is utter shit from the gutter and better they are wiped off the net by whatever means. "Phoney pedo" sites are pandering to a very large, but perverse element of society and there are far more serious issues underneath and involving actual abuse of children.

The defendants made their judgement - the time has come to defend that (and chances are some lawyer will present a reasonable defense), but whether a jury convicts or not - they need to be wiped off the map. Webby's law applies

I am fairly confident if this goes to a trial that they will be found guilty. Just look at the responses in this thread. People don't like this shit and it shouldn't be tolerated.

If there was nothing more on those sites than just pictures of clothed children I hope they walk. As interpreted by the law there really isn't anything illegal taking place.

With that being said, if there is anything and I mean anything that the people who are responsible for this shit did that was illegal (1 nude picture, any links to real cp, even not paying $1 of taxes) then I would like to see them in prison for life.

If this was a case tried in moral court it would be a slam dunk case, but since it's being tried in a court of law, and there is no law that I can see being broken, I don't think there should be a conviction.

If they can't find something else that links these people to illegal activities, I hope that they walk, and when they walk out of the courtroom, so happy that they won, someone walks up and shoots them on site. I think that would certainly make headlines, and send a message that you may be able to do this legally, but you won't "get away with it".

[biftek]

so what , your saying that although someone hasn't broken any laws , follows the books , crosses the T's and dots the I's , but simply on a moral basis someone doesn' like the site that gives them the free will to go up and shoot the owners
fuck , i hope none of you ppl ever go to court over your legal sites , there will be a shitload of family groups and other anti-porn group ready to shoot you

[MrPinks]

If they are found not guilty based on law, then I am sure there are a lot of groups and politicians that are willing to change the law to win the next case.

Originally Posted by lucky1

I am fairly confident if this goes to a trial that they will be found guilty. Just look at the responses in this thread. People don't like this shit and it shouldn't be tolerated.

If there was nothing more on those sites than just pictures of clothed children I hope they walk. As interpreted by the law there really isn't anything illegal taking place.

With that being said, if there is anything and I mean anything that the people who are responsible for this shit did that was illegal (1 nude picture, any links to real cp, even not paying $1 of taxes) then I would like to see them in prison for life.

If this was a case tried in moral court it would be a slam dunk case, but since it's being tried in a court of law, and there is no law that I can see being broken, I don't think there should be a conviction.

If they can't find something else that links these people to illegal activities, I hope that they walk, and when they walk out of the courtroom, so happy that they won, someone walks up and shoots them on site. I think that would certainly make headlines, and send a message that you may be able to do this legally, but you won't "get away with it".

[lucky1]

Originally Posted by biftek

so what , your saying that although someone hasn't broken any laws , follows the books , crosses the T's and dots the I's , but simply on a moral basis someone doesn' like the site that gives them the free will to go up and shoot the owners
fuck , i hope none of you ppl ever go to court over your legal sites , there will be a shitload of family groups and other anti-porn group ready to shoot you

Yes I think that these people should not be found guilty.
Yes I would like to see someone shoot them in their face on national television.

There is no law that was broken, but these are clearly sites that cater to pedos, and yes the less pedos or people that cater to them in this world the better.

In my opinion there isn't much worse than cp, and this is as close as it gets without being illegal. Who, besides a pedo, would sign up and pay for a site to look at pictures of children dressed in lingerie. What do you think the person that paid to see these pictures is doing when he/she/it is looking at them?

I don't think that I have to worry about being shot (I'm no Larry Flynt).
This doesn't have anything to do with porn anyway. This is about the exploitation of children and a grey area of cp.

[lucky1]

Originally Posted by MrPinks

If they are found not guilty based on law, then I am sure there are a lot of groups and politicians that are willing to change the law to win the next case.

That is what I'm afraid of.

If they do change the law, they will probably do something ridiculous like make everyone in the US keep 2257 records of every person that appears on a website even if they are fully clothed. You know how well that works to prevent cp.