Legal or not, content like this is made for pedos. - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Dirty Dane · 12-14-2006, 05:07 PM

50 pedos.....

RRRED · 12-14-2006, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin3

Well shit. I better take down my mature site. I don't want it to make some one rape my grandma

Bahahhaa that's classic!! Maybe gay sites too.... I don't want my hairdresser to get raped.

Spunky · 12-14-2006, 05:30 PM

So many CJ's out there use young looking thumbs.been like that for years

PMdave · 12-14-2006, 05:31 PM

yeah you are right pedophiles are funny. hahaha.
And oh dear god I almost wet myself: "I don't want my hairdresser to get raped" LOL.

Can't you see that this will hurt your own income in the lung run? (I'll help you with 1 small example: regulations will become stricter and stricter to a point that it will just become impossible to earn an income from online porn even if you only run gay or mature sites)

Laugh away problems as much as you want. Just gives the right wing tomatoes to throw our way and they will be getting the public opinion on their hand.

nikki99 · 12-14-2006, 06:15 PM

interesting thread

ForteCash · 12-14-2006, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

Just checked some of slicks sites.

Yadayada... legal content ... blablabla ... they have no right to ask for documents ... yadayada ... legit sponsors ...

Now go to http://www.extremepink.com/ and tell me if most of these girls even look like they are 18./ I dont care if they are 18 or 45, fact is that they are there because they look -15. That's just encouraging pedos to rape their daughters, neices, students and so on.

FUCK OFF

Vigilante · 12-14-2006, 06:35 PM

What would you do?

Let´s say you are the Webost/Domainregistrar you see this pic at a clients page:

Ok theres a link : 2257 compliant ... ok its all sponsored content wait... 30 affiliate site. lets´s assume every affiliate page hast 20 + sources for their photos.

That makes at least approx 600 mails that has to be send to find the docs for that specific girl ( for the domain registrar).

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

Possibility 1) Shut down a site that is 80% pedo oriented and in the result everything is legal :/

Possibilty 2) Say "fuck it i am too lazy to find out if these girls are 18" and leave a pedo site online?

Vigilante · 12-14-2006, 06:52 PM

Ok he could click the Link on the pic to find out what sponsor suplies this gallery and click on that sponsors 2257 link but in that case: (mobbucks) clicking the 2257 compliance link leads me to:

Quote:

Not Found
The requested URL /2257.html was not found on this server.

Apache/1.3.33 Server at www.mobbucks.com Port 80

So if i would be the registrar/webhost i would shut down that page to just to be on the safe site.

PHP-CODER-FOR-HIRE · 12-14-2006, 06:53 PM

I thought it was equally illegal to portray an adult as a minor in porn?

Dragar · 12-14-2006, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

Just checked some of slicks sites.

Yadayada... legal content ... blablabla ... they have no right to ask for documents ... yadayada ... legit sponsors ...

Now go to http://www.extremepink.com/ and tell me if most of these girls even look like they are 18./ I dont care if they are 18 or 45, fact is that they are there because they look -15. That's just encouraging pedos to rape their daughters, neices, students and so on.

I myself don't look at any women unless they have crows feet and wrinkled breasts
can't get in trouble that way

PMdave · 12-14-2006, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PHP-CODER-FOR-HIRE

I thought it was equally illegal to portray an adult as a minor in porn?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...-000-.html#8_C

Quote:

(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.
.....
.....
.....
.....
(11) the term ?indistinguishable? used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.

bizman2960 · 12-14-2006, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

Just checked some of slicks sites.

Yadayada... legal content ... blablabla ... they have no right to ask for documents ... yadayada ... legit sponsors ...

Now go to http://www.extremepink.com/ and tell me if most of these girls even look like they are 18./ I dont care if they are 18 or 45, fact is that they are there because they look -15. That's just encouraging pedos to rape their daughters, neices, students and so on.

All due respect, PMDave (seriously). But you are profiting from pics of exploited, strung-out girls with psychological problems, who shouldn't be posing naked ANYWAY. Encouraging pedos isn't the problem in this industry (they like 9-10 year olds, not 18). It's the fact that confused, desperate girls are chewed up & spat out for the benefit of your $$$.

bizman2960 · 12-14-2006, 07:19 PM

Do you think slapping a 35 year old girl across the face with a 14-inch cock and making her swallow cum on camera is any more morally acceptable than shooting an 18 year old?

jeffrey · 12-14-2006, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vigilante

What would you do?

Let´s say you are the Webost/Domainregistrar you see this pic at a clients page:

Ok theres a link : 2257 compliant ... ok its all sponsored content wait... 30 affiliate site. lets´s assume every affiliate page hast 20 + sources for their photos.

That makes at least approx 600 mails that has to be send to find the docs for that specific girl ( for the domain registrar).

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

Possibility 1) Shut down a site that is 80% pedo oriented and in the result everything is legal :/

Possibilty 2) Say "fuck it i am too lazy to find out if these girls are 18" and leave a pedo site online?

Hmm I jsut checked CNN and there is no news about the US becoming communist, did I miss something?

Its innocent untill proven giulty.
The fact that they can not shut his site down by LAW is one reason they cant.
Also, why does everyone forget about fucking privacy laws?
The most slick could do is link to all the 2257 pages and tell them to get the docs on their own. But then the company would say "wait your a domain registrar not someone authorized to have confidentail information so go eat shit".

I hope slick sues the shit out of directnic.

Hear is a question for ya.
Whats better, a pedo looking at pictures of girls that are 18, but he thinks might be younger.
Or
That guy actually trading CP, or worse going out there and getting his own?

LadyMischief · 12-14-2006, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

Just checked some of slicks sites.

Yadayada... legal content ... blablabla ... they have no right to ask for documents ... yadayada ... legit sponsors ...

Now go to http://www.extremepink.com/ and tell me if most of these girls even look like they are 18./ I dont care if they are 18 or 45, fact is that they are there because they look -15. That's just encouraging pedos to rape their daughters, neices, students and so on.

First off, almost every gallery I see there are from fairly well-known sponsors who post here.. Panchodog, Mobbucks, New Sensations, etc, reputable companies. I should add, most of those galleries have compliance statements right on them. If there was an issue with the content, why would one not simply get the information from the gallery itself?
I don't like how people make these girls to look a bit younger than they are, but in all honesty, a little due dilligence would have avoided all those problems in the first place.

So is everyone going to start roasting all those sponsors who provide the galleries and run the paysites now? Or is this going to simply be confined to the guy promoting them?

For the record, I don't like CP, think people who do it/promote it SUCK, I am a parent, but knowing everything that is involved in running a tgp, link trades, etc, sometimes you can't always qualify what is on a trade or a link by only going there once. Most of the guys who set up trades have to go through periodically, and they aren't all going to see the same glaring problems others might. Is he suddenly then going to also be accountable for the content of the sites he's linking too as well? Or is he truly being roasted for just the content on his network? Where's the dividing line on politics and realism here?

PMdave · 12-14-2006, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffrey

Also, why does everyone forget about fucking privacy laws?
The most slick could do is link to all the 2257 pages and tell them to get the docs on their own. But then the company would say "wait your a domain registrar not someone authorized to have confidentail information so go eat shit".

So a picture and a birthdate are confidential now? That's all directnic asked for: a governement with a clearly visible picture and date of birth. Nothing more nothing less.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffrey

Hear is a question for ya.
Whats better, a pedo looking at pictures of girls that are 18, but he thinks might be younger.
Or
That guy actually trading CP, or worse going out there and getting his own?

uhm... I don't like either of em. Especially as the first guy is only looking at the pics only because he believes they are 12-15.

jeffrey · 12-14-2006, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

So a picture and a birthdate are confidential now? That's all directnic asked for: a governement with a clearly visible picture and date of birth. Nothing more nothing less.

uhm... I don't like either of em. Especially as the first guy is only looking at the pics only because he believes they are 12-15.

Send me your moms ID with just her picture and birthdate.
NO?
Why not? maybe because its NONE OF MY FUCKING BUSINESS to see that?
Hell lets see yours even.

Seriously you need to look into privacy laws.

You dont like either option. True of me and I am sure many others. But dont be ignorant to the fact of what happens.

John69 · 12-14-2006, 07:43 PM

makes you think about how many 2257 docs are faked with fake id's ?

lots of shit*stains trying to make easy money

PMdave · 12-14-2006, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffrey

Send me your moms ID with just her picture and birthdate.
NO?
Why not? maybe because its NONE OF MY FUCKING BUSINESS to see that?
Hell lets see yours even.

Seriously you need to look into privacy laws.

Know what if we did business togeher, with terms being written out that all documents being transferred to you would be confidential, I would have no problem with it.

There is a difference between a boardname and someone you do business with. (I wonder why I actually bother to say things like this on gfy)

jeffrey · 12-14-2006, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

Know what if we did business togeher, with terms being written out that all documents being transferred to you would be confidential, I would have no problem with it.

There is a difference between a boardname and someone you do business with. (I wonder why I actually bother to say things like this on gfy)

Ok, what if i had terms writen out that it would be confidentail. But my buddy joe's wife wanted to see just your picture and birthdate.

Would you be ok with me sending them without you having writen confidentiality from these new people that are going to have it?

What if slick wanted it, and then would show it to a registrar. Would that still be ok with you?

What if it it was your daughters ID? (this is assuming you have an of age daughter)

jeffrey · 12-14-2006, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

Know what if we did business togeher, with terms being written out that all documents being transferred to you would be confidential, I would have no problem with it.

There is a difference between a boardname and someone you do business with. (I wonder why I actually bother to say things like this on gfy)

Ok, what if i had terms writen out that it would be confidentail. But my buddy joe's wife wanted to see just your picture and birthdate.

Would you be ok with me sending them without you having writen confidentiality from these new people that are going to have it?

What if slick wanted it, and then would show it to a registrar. Would that still be ok with you?

What if it it was your daughters ID? (this is assuming you have an of age daughter)

What if the registrar was somedrunkregistrarbasement.com but they had a thing on the site saying they would keep things confidential.

PMdave · 12-14-2006, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffrey

Ok, what if i had terms writen out that it would be confidentail. But my buddy joe's wife wanted to see just your picture and birthdate.

Would you be ok with me sending them without you having writen confidentiality from these new people that are going to have it?

What if slick wanted it, and then would show it to a registrar. Would that still be ok with you?

What if it it was your daughters ID? (this is assuming you have an of age daughter)

What if the registrar was somedrunkregistrarbasement.com but they had a thing on the site saying they would keep things confidential.

Yup as they all would have signed a model release form I would not have a problem. They agreed to it.

And when you are looking to do business you make choices. You decide who you do business with and if you decide to do business with somedrunkregistrarbasement.com you agree to the terms they stipulated. So don't come complaining when they enforce their terms (within the legal bounders what this case is as they arent asking for any sensitive private data).

dig420 · 12-14-2006, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

Yup as they all would have signed a model release form I would not have a problem. They agreed to it.

And when you are looking to do business you make choices. You decide who you do business with and if you decide to do business with somedrunkregistrarbasement.com you agree to the terms they stipulated. So don't come complaining when they enforce their terms (within the legal bounders what this case is as they arent asking for any sensitive private data).

this is GREAT news for my model stalking/slashing hobby! COOL!

I can tell from the look in her eyes that Raven loves me, she doesn't have to say a word.

PMdave · 12-14-2006, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dig420

this is GREAT news for my model stalking/slashing hobby! COOL!

I can tell from the look in her eyes that Raven loves me, she doesn't have to say a word.

yeah because with her birthdate you know everything you need to know to stalk her.

cayne · 12-14-2006, 08:13 PM

loryn for president! :>

dig420 · 12-14-2006, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

yeah because with her birthdate you know everything you need to know to stalk her.

no, don't be mad. you and I are in complete agreement. In fact, besides the registrar, the billing processor, the host and the FBI I think ANYBODY should be able to demand model info.

How else am I gonna get married?

Yngwie · 12-14-2006, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loryn-Adult.com

If someone is going to become a rapist I seriously doubt a fucking picture is the cause of it. That is like saying people who look at porn will all one day rape hot women, it is ridiculous. If they have rape tendencies it is in THEM not because they looked at a picture. Just like people saying Heavy Metal music caused people to kill themselves. BULLSHIT if a person kills themselves they had issues before they heard the music. Those issues needed to be dealt with not the music. The fact that people blame music for the actions of the person shows they weren't very observant in the first place of the person?s problems and if they were THEY might have been able to save their life.

And I know in some cases people show NO SIGNS of wanting to kill themselves. My best friend?s father shot himself. There were NO signs that he was depressed or wanted to die. So there are exceptions to that, but my point being music or looking at a picture does not make people commit suicide or rape someone. There is something deeper to deal with.

I am not in anyway saying I support pedo shit, I think they should all be shot there is no cure for people like that. I am saying that a picture does not cause people with deep issues like that to commit rape. It is in them and they are going to do it whether they see a pic or not. The thing I do not like about it is what the actual taking of the pictures does to the actual child in the picture and so on. Some could argue that seeing those pics helps them not to commit rape on a child. I saw a TV show, I believe 60 minutes or something, when a guy was saying that by looking at porn it was actually helping him to stop wanting to commit rape. That is bullshit too. THE GUY HAS ISSUES and any photo is not the reason.

Porn does not make EVERY SINGLE PERSON behave in the same manor. If a person is going to hurt someone it's because they have it in THEM and if it isn't a picture it could be something as easy as watching a little girl or boy getting off the school bus. THEY ARE SICK AND NEED TO BE BANNED FROM SOCITEY FOR LIFE OR JUST FUCKING KILLED. THEY ARE A WASTE OF LIFE. (The rapist not the people with the site in this thread, just wanted to make that clear hehe)

Finally, some common sense in the thread.

To be honest though, wouldn't you think that IF a pedo was on the net looking at pics that may or may not be underage that it would save a child in his area from being attacked by him? Instead of it making the pedo want to go out and harm a child he would get off on the pic(s) and that would be the end. (for now)

Why would someone surf the net, see a pic (nude or otherwise) of a girl that looks underage and think to himself "hmm.. I think I'm gonna go out, find a little girl and have sex with her".. It just doesn't happen that way. Like you said, THEY have it in THEM already to do that. They were predators way before seeing pics on the net. Also, if a guy looks at pics of a girl knowing that she's 18+, but she looks younger, it DOES NOT make him a pedophile. If he was a pedo why the fuck would he be looking for pics of LEGAL girls that look younger? Why would he waste his time when it's not what he wanted in the first place? I guess the fact that most of the sales that I have made since 1997 have been to teen pay sites and teen webcams makes me a pedo? (according to the thinking of some people I mean).

Another thing, do people actually know what a pedophile is? It's someone who has some sort of sexual attraction to PRE-PUBESCENT boy/girls. Ya, 13,14,15, 16, 17 year old is still not a good thing (depending on the age of the other person), but it's still not, by definition, a pedophile.

PMdave · 12-14-2006, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yngwie

Another thing, do people actually know what a pedophile is? It's someone who has some sort of sexual attraction to PRE-PUBESCENT boy/girls. Ya, 13,14,15, 16, 17 year old is still not a good thing (depending on the age of the other person), but it's still not, by definition, a pedophile.

So now because she looks like a 13 year old instead of a 7 year old it's less worse? Does the fact that it is "by definition" is not a pedophile changes anything?

And the general concencus now is that there should be more child porn because it's not encouriging but stopping pedos? Or should we just not care about child pornography is it doesn't do any harm once it has been shot? Maybe they should just legalize all existing child pornography and just put a ban on new material to be produced?

The law defines the age of 18. Untill that age it's child pornography. That was the point. Even if the models are 18 it's still illegal to make them look 13.

will76 · 12-14-2006, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

Just checked some of slicks sites.

Yadayada... legal content ... blablabla ... they have no right to ask for documents ... yadayada ... legit sponsors ...

Now go to http://www.extremepink.com/ and tell me if most of these girls even look like they are 18./ I dont care if they are 18 or 45, fact is that they are there because they look -15. That's just encouraging pedos to rape their daughters, neices, students and so on.

i don't agree with the " it will make pedos rape kids" argument.

Personally I think it is sick. I stay as far away from it as possible. However the girls is over 18 it is legal. I don't think all of the girls on those sites are over 18 or were at the time the photo was taken, way too many of them look WAY too young, some look 12 - 13 years old.

If someone wants to use 18 year old girls and make them look 12 there is noting illegal about it. I hope they get checked for 2257 once a week, and they should be prepaired to have a spot light on them to make sure the content is legit

What i think is crazy is their affiliates who use these pictures of girls who look like 12 - 17 years old and they put the pictures on their sites/servers and they take the word of the affiliate company that everything is legit. That is fucking crazy, how can you use content that looks underage and not verify their age, put your life in someone else's hands and trust them that every single picture is legit. Not to mention what are you going to do when the police knock on your door, tell them sorry it's not mine go see the affiliate company,

. they will drag you to jail.

will76 · 12-14-2006, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heywood

Legal or not, I wont touch any of that shit. Even a porn guy has to draw the line somewhere.

there are several reasons not to. Some people will look at it from a moral standpoint. Some people have kids themselves and it is way to freaky for them. Some people look at the risks involved and say it is not worth it to get the police harrassing you and having to prove to people all the time they are not underage.

BoyAlley · 12-14-2006, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

Even if the models are 18 it's still illegal to make them look 13.

No it's not. The supreme court disagrees with you, oh mighty armchair scholar:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/...orn/index.html

PMdave · 12-14-2006, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

i don't agree with the " it will make pedos rape kids" argument.

Personally I think it is sick. I stay as far away from it as possible. However the girls is over 18 it is legal. I don't think all of the girls on those sites are over 18 or were at the time the photo was taken, way too many of them look WAY too young, some look 12 - 13 years old.

If someone wants to use 18 year old girls and make them look 12 there is noting illegal about it. I hope they get checked for 2257 once a week, and they should be prepaired to have a spot light on them to make sure the content is legit

see people dont threads.
A/ I have retracted the rape thing. It was not the point I was making.
B/ It IS ILLEGAL to make 18 year old girl looking 12. There is more law than just 2257. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...-000-.html#8_C

will76 · 12-14-2006, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mediachick

When I was recruiting for ifriends we had a young gay guy (19) that looked REALLY young. When I submitted his form ifriends refused him because of his looks even though they had the proof that he was not underaged (and it was clear).

I was wondering at the time if this guy could've bust them for discrimination? After all they refused him because of how he looked which is not under his control...

you are the second person who have mentioned ifriends " look too young" policy. If you are 18 or older but look way younger for your age ifriends wont accept you.

It's their website and the have to do with the bullshit involved with false CP complaints. They choose to be proactive and do not want to even give the appearence of having CP on their site.

However you and the other person who mentioned this both mentioned what they were doing in a bad way and mentioned sueing them?

What the hell is wrong with you people. YOu want to sue them because they wont accept models who look like kids ??? god damn.

Pleasurepays · 12-14-2006, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

No it's not. The supreme court disagrees with you, oh mighty armchair scholar:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/...orn/index.html

thats about illustrations silly

it is illegal to make an adult look like a 13yr old and depict them in sexually explicit manner. always has been... since the beginning of hte interweb.

will76 · 12-14-2006, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

see people dont threads.
A/ I have retracted the rape thing. It was not the point I was making.
B/ It IS ILLEGAL to make 18 year old girl looking 12. There is more law than just 2257. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...-000-.html#8_C

Sorry not everyone reads all the replies first.

I don't see where it says people over the age of 18 but look under 18 are illegal to use their content.

Looks is totally way subjective, but if you can copy paste the paraghrap I would like to read it.

BoyAlley · 12-14-2006, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

thats about illustrations silly

it is illegal to make an adult look like a 13yr old and depict them in sexually explicit manner. always has been... since the beginning of hte interweb.

Uhm, no it's not. Read again. The law that was overturned by the supreme court:

Quote:

had banned a range of techniques -- including computer-generated images and the use of youthful-looking adults -- which were designed to convey the impression of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

PMdave · 12-14-2006, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

Looks is totally way subjective, but if you can copy paste the paraghrap I would like to read it.

(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.
.....
.....
.....
.....
(11) the term ?indistinguishable? used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.

Twisted Dave · 12-14-2006, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

I didn't follow the whole story, but it seems it has been going for a few days now, so he had a few days to prove himself innocent...

I believe Slick brought the whole thing up ... I doubt he's guilty if he brought it up!

And I honestly know plenty of girls who look young and are actually in their 20s ...

Personally, I know these girls. In my life.

And lets face it ... everyone here who drools over Jordan Capri should go wash themselves in Holy Water... she's in her 20's, Married, and she BLATANTLY looks 16. Anyone who says otherwise is talking shit.

Pleasurepays · 12-14-2006, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Uhm, no it's not. Read again. The law that was overturned by the supreme court:

i remember all of this. i remember the guy being arrested and all the fuss about people creating fake cp by putting a younger girls head on an older girls body and visa versa. i undestand what you are saying, but i think you are mistaken in that they are talking about artificial images... not images of actual people and images that were altered by switching bodies/heads.

anyway... too lazy to look it all up.... but

i do remember vividly the police officer that posted on Netpond many years ago (maybe 1998) and gave a very good run down on state and federal law on the issue. it was pretty clear that you didn't want to dress a girl up in braces, pig tails and a hello kitty skirt.

given the total volume of content out there showing exactly that and the fact that a company like www.teenrevenue.com and others can do what they do, they must have some legal argument on their side.

bausch · 12-14-2006, 09:18 PM

.... msg deleted

BoyAlley · 12-14-2006, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

it was pretty clear that you didn't want to dress a girl up in braces, pig tails and a hello kitty skirt.

I agree with you 110% that it's not a good idea, I personally find it objectionable, and it's something I certainly wouldn't do, but it is legally protected speech as decided by the supreme court.

PMdave · 12-14-2006, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Uhm, no it's not. Read again. The law that was overturned by the supreme court:

Go tell that to the fbi;
http://jackson.fbi.gov/pressrel/2004/jk110104.htm (2004 or 2 years after the pupreme court overturned 2256)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...tion_2256.html
(U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04)

will76 · 12-14-2006, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

(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.
.....
.....
.....
.....
(11) the term ?indistinguishable? used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.

If that was the case then everyone who owns teens sites would be arrested for CP. All of the "teen" sites have girls that look 17ish or younger or *some* govt official will think this anyway.

What you are quoting, as I understand it, is explaining the different ways it can be depicted, meaning it is not limited to just internet, or film, or video , etc... it is not defining "child pornography" but the different ways it can be distributed.

I am sure an attorney can clear this up, but I am 99% you can not be arrested for CP for having a naked 18 year old girl on your site that *some one* thinks looks 17 or younger.

will76 · 12-14-2006, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

Go tell that to the fbi;
http://jackson.fbi.gov/pressrel/2004/jk110104.htm (2004 or 2 years after the pupreme court overturned 2256)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...tion_2256.html
(U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04)

I am not trying to piss you off because I am interested in what you are saying and if it is true. but, what am i missing here ?

http://jackson.fbi.gov/pressrel/2004/jk110104.htm

Press Release 100 W. Capitol Street
Suite 1553
Jackson, Mississippi 39269

November 8, 2004

Bob Garrity, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Mississippi, announced as follows:

On Monday, November 1, 2004, Special Agents of the FBI, assisted by the Prentiss County Sheriff's Department, arrested KENNETH JASON BEARDEN, age 24, of Booneville, Mississippi, pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. BEARDEN, an employee of the Mississippi Department of Transportation, was indicted by a federal grand jury on October 19, 2004, on one charge of knowingly possessing images of child pornography that had been shipped and transported in interstate commerce by means of computers, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2252A(a)(5 )(B) and 2256(8).

If found guilty, BEARDEN faces up to $250,100 in fines and as many as 10 years imprisonment with up to 3 years supervised release.

Garrity stressed that indictments and arrests are accusations only and there is a presumption of innocence prior to any judicial proceeding.

PMdave · 12-14-2006, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

If that was the case then everyone who owns teens sites would be arrested for CP. All of the "teen" sites have girls that look 17ish or younger or *some* govt official will think this anyway.

What you are quoting, as I understand it, is explaining the different ways it can be depicted, meaning it is not limited to just internet, or film, or video , etc... it is not defining "child pornography" but the different ways it can be distributed.

I am sure an attorney can clear this up, but I am 99% you can not be arrested for CP for having a naked 18 year old girl on your site that *some one* thinks looks 17 or younger.

Ok leaving out irrelevant parts;

?child pornography? means any visual depiction, including any photograph of sexually explicit conduct, where such visual depiction is a digital image is indistinguishable(*) from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

(*) the term ?indistinguishable? used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

Pleasurepays · 12-14-2006, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

I agree with you 110% that it's not a good idea, I personally find it objectionable, and it's something I certainly wouldn't do, but it is legally protected speech as decided by the supreme court.

http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v55/no1/mota.pdf

you're right... i am recalling the law before it was struck down. and the guy that was arrested and convicted before this was struck down.

angry gay guy - 1
insecure heterosexual - 0

i am personally a little torn on the issue. from one side, a simple, sound argument is "hey, its 100% legal"... from the other side, i can imagine how a parent feels looking at their 13 year old daugher.. then seeing a site like that and knowing why guys are there and knowing its not just 13yr old boys with a healthy, curiosity that are looking. thats gotta be a creepy and weird feeling.

Pleasurepays · 12-14-2006, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PMdave

Ok leaving out irrelevant parts;

?child pornography? means any visual depiction, including any photograph of sexually explicit conduct, where such visual depiction is a digital image is indistinguishable(*) from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

(*) the term ?indistinguishable? used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

page 7

http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v55/no1/mota.pdf

PMdave · 12-14-2006, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

I am not trying to piss you off because I am interested in what you are saying and if it is true. but, what am i missing here ?

Garrity stressed that indictments and arrests are accusations only and there is a presumption of innocence prior to any judicial proceeding.

He is arresting him based on a law:Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2252A(a)(5 )(B) and 2256(8).
How can you arrest someone base on a law that was revoked 2 years earlier?

gleem · 12-14-2006, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penrod

I just looked at a pic of 2 guys kissing.........I think I am going out tonight and pick up a bear.

hahahaha, I can relate, I was jusgt editing a big fat hairy dude on dude pic

PMdave · 12-14-2006, 09:40 PM

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/f...20%20%20%20%20
published 01/03/05

12-14-2006, 05:30 PM	#53
Spunky I need a beer Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: ♠ Toiletville ♠ Posts: 133,944	So many CJ's out there use young looking thumbs.been like that for years __________________ *YOUR INFORMATION HERE*

12-14-2006, 06:15 PM	#55
nikki99 Supermodel Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Sodoma & Gomorra Posts: 22,901	interesting thread __________________ SMC Revenue - Best Tgirl websites of the world now VR Non exclusive BIG Tranny/shemale Package for sale, full 2257 - hit me up skype: nikkimontero

12-14-2006, 06:53 PM	#59
PHP-CODER-FOR-HIRE Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,090	I thought it was equally illegal to portray an adult as a minor in porn? __________________ Hire a PHP Coder

12-14-2006, 07:19 PM	#63
bizman2960 Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 358	Do you think slapping a 35 year old girl across the face with a 14-inch cock and making her swallow cum on camera is any more morally acceptable than shooting an 18 year old? __________________ The Young Sluts!!! BizMan2960 at gmail.com :: ICQ 486-450-912 Last edited by bizman2960; 12-14-2006 at 07:20 PM.. Reason: typo

12-14-2006, 07:43 PM	#68
John69 Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 942	makes you think about how many 2257 docs are faked with fake id's ? lots of shit*stains trying to make easy money __________________ DARKSOUL: thanks but no thanks, your over priced.

12-14-2006, 05:07 PM	#51
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	50 pedos.....

12-14-2006, 05:31 PM	#54
PMdave Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,517	yeah you are right pedophiles are funny. hahaha. And oh dear god I almost wet myself: "I don't want my hairdresser to get raped" LOL. Can't you see that this will hurt your own income in the lung run? (I'll help you with 1 small example: regulations will become stricter and stricter to a point that it will just become impossible to earn an income from online porn even if you only run gay or mature sites) Laugh away problems as much as you want. Just gives the right wing tomatoes to throw our way and they will be getting the public opinion on their hand.

12-14-2006, 06:35 PM	#57
Vigilante Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Tätervolk City Posts: 696	What would you do? Let´s say you are the Webost/Domainregistrar you see this pic at a clients page: Ok theres a link : 2257 compliant ... ok its all sponsored content wait... 30 affiliate site. lets´s assume every affiliate page hast 20 + sources for their photos. That makes at least approx 600 mails that has to be send to find the docs for that specific girl ( for the domain registrar). WHAT WOULD YOU DO? Possibility 1) Shut down a site that is 80% pedo oriented and in the result everything is legal :/ Possibilty 2) Say "fuck it i am too lazy to find out if these girls are 18" and leave a pedo site online?

12-14-2006, 08:13 PM	#75
cayne My time is coming... Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Europe --- eMail: service(at)badasscompany.com --- ICQ: 60288510 Posts: 7,476	loryn for president! :> __________________ If lesbian anal is wrong, I don't want to be right.

12-14-2006, 09:18 PM	#90
bausch Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,017	.... msg deleted

12-14-2006, 09:40 PM	#100
PMdave Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1,517	http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/f...20%20%20%20%20 published 01/03/05