Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Post New Thread Reply

Register GFY Rules Calendar
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >
Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed.

 
Thread Tools
Old 09-19-2002, 07:50 PM   #2
WiredGuy
Pounding Googlebot
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 34,482
What shocks me is that this ruling was unanimous! How could everyone decide that videotaping/photographing upskirt shots does not violate privacy? I'm sorry, but this seems a little wrong.

I'm all for upskirts (really, I like it!), but when you do it without consent, that's just wrong.

WG
__________________
I play with Google.
WiredGuy is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2002, 07:58 PM   #3
beemk
CLICK HERE
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 20,829
i agree with wiredguy
__________________
I host with Vacares
beemk is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2002, 08:00 PM   #4
mrthumbs
salad tossing sig guy
 
mrthumbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: mrthumbs*gmail.com
Posts: 11,702
i agree with Beemk
mrthumbs is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2002, 08:01 PM   #5
beemk
CLICK HERE
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 20,829
Quote:
He was arrested in 1999 when women he photographed spotted him crouching near them.
dont they have any type of shoe cameras or something? no wonder the guy got caught.
__________________
I host with Vacares
beemk is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2002, 08:15 PM   #7
WiredGuy
Pounding Googlebot
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 34,482
Quote:
Originally posted by EscortBiz
all BS aside its good news that things are getting better legally
While I kinda disagree with this particular law, this is true, it does seem that from a legal perspective that prosecutors are starting to lay off pornographers. But I still think consent is needed in this voyeurism case.

Especially since this article references little girls? Upskirts of girls without consent is bad, but upskirts of little girls (18 or under) and without consent, I kinda draw the line there.

WG
__________________
I play with Google.
WiredGuy is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2002, 08:22 PM   #9
WiredGuy
Pounding Googlebot
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 34,482
Even without consent? Think about it from a girl's point of view, how would you feel if there was basically camera's everywhere you go specifically trying to get upskirt shots of girls? If you go to say amusement parks, dance club, even the washroom.

I still think consent is definitely needed.

WG
__________________
I play with Google.
WiredGuy is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2002, 08:35 PM   #11
SykkBoy
Jesus loves bacon
 
SykkBoy's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sin City, Motherfucker
Posts: 19,969
Quote:
Originally posted by EscortBiz
anything under 18 is bad and nasty, but over age i think all should be legal
so, you have these amazing super powers to distinguish a girl/womn's age just by glancing at her knickers in a fuzzy, poorly lit picture??? you sir are a god!
SykkBoy is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2002, 08:47 PM   #12
beemk
CLICK HERE
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 20,829
what if you were browsing a tgp site and went to an upskirt gallery and saw upskirt shots of your wife/girlfriend/daughter, etc in the gallery and there was nothing you could do even though they didnt want their pictures up there and didnt give permission. would you think thats fair?
__________________
I host with Vacares
beemk is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2002, 08:51 PM   #13
sumphatpimp
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5,235
That pude wacker judge keeps running his mouth and he'll kill that niche quick!!!!!!!!!!!! J.O. only the forbidden sells. Tell people its ok and it won't sell. Believe me i do know that for sure.



Oh for a man like Bill Clinton ........... all he did was sit in his office and get BJ's from some fat chick. Now that was a public servant !


Minded his own damn business and let the country run itself.
sumphatpimp is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2002, 09:09 PM   #14
MadDog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally posted by WiredGuy


While I kinda disagree with this particular law, this is true, it does seem that from a legal perspective that prosecutors are starting to lay off pornographers. But I still think consent is needed in this voyeurism case.

Especially since this article references little girls? Upskirts of girls without consent is bad, but upskirts of little girls (18 or under) and without consent, I kinda draw the line there.

WG
What was done was not specifically prohibited by the law, so the correct judgment is acquittal. This seems to mean the system is working.

It's still a non-issue as relates directly to upskirt content, because he doesn't end up with 2257 documentation for the footage/pics, and therefore will have trouble selling it. So existing law does sort of protect the victims even in this case.
__________________
<p><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.maddoghouse.com"><img src="http://www.maddoghouse.com/images_global/mdhlogo60x45_GFYbutton_black.jpg" width="60" height="45" border="0">MadDogHouse.com</a></font></p>
MadDog is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2002, 09:16 PM   #15
WiredGuy
Pounding Googlebot
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 34,482
Even the pervs who are just shooting the content for themselves? What about pedophiles who go around shooting young girl upskirts and just beating off to it. So he's not selling it, so he won't need 2257 docs, but it's still illegal.

So it prevents mass-distribution which is a good thing, but it doesn't prevent the problem in my opinion. Pedophiles know where to go to share their pics/videos in the underground to avoid police, and so this stuff may get distributed on not such a large scale but still does go around.

WG
__________________
I play with Google.
WiredGuy is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2002, 09:31 PM   #17
Scootermuze
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,513
Not really a shot in the arm for porn.. they're gonna ammend the law to "close the loophole"
Scootermuze is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2002, 09:47 PM   #18
Gemini
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: o-HI-o
Posts: 7,183
Ohio uses a bunch of smaller charges on upskirt camera guys and that rule of watch your step sir, Oops... Watch your head sir, THUNK, Oops.

If it gets to trial they usually get 6 - 18 mos. Guess thats better than if a boyfriend or hubby gets them first.
__________________
<center><a target="_blank" href="http://dev.datedollars.com/index.php?s=signup&amp;aid=535&amp;cfg=aac"><img border="0" src="http://216.130.172.224/gfy/gsig.gif" width="490" height="100"></a><br><a href="http://dev.datedollars.com/index.php?s=signup&amp;aid=535&amp;cfg=aac" target="_blank"><b><font face="Arial"><font color="#FF99FF"> Buy me away from Slavedriver Smokey!<br>It's May Sig Sweeps!<font></b></center>
Gemini is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2002, 05:02 AM   #19
MadDog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally posted by WiredGuy
Even the pervs who are just shooting the content for themselves? What about pedophiles who go around shooting young girl upskirts and just beating off to it. So he's not selling it, so he won't need 2257 docs, but it's still illegal.

WG
Apparently it's not illegal yet, although I agree it should be. The lady lobbying for a new law to make it illegal will probably accomplish what we want.
__________________
<p><font size="2" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.maddoghouse.com"><img src="http://www.maddoghouse.com/images_global/mdhlogo60x45_GFYbutton_black.jpg" width="60" height="45" border="0">MadDogHouse.com</a></font></p>
MadDog is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2002, 09:32 AM   #21
Juge
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,917
Quote:
Originally posted by WiredGuy
What shocks me is that this ruling was unanimous! How could everyone decide that videotaping/photographing upskirt shots does not violate privacy? I'm sorry, but this seems a little wrong.

I'm all for upskirts (really, I like it!), but when you do it without consent, that's just wrong.

WG
Wow, unanimous! I agree with you, WiredGuy... doing it without consent is wrong...
Juge is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2002, 10:04 AM   #22
salsbury
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,070
Quote:
Originally posted by SykkBoy2
so, you have these amazing super powers to distinguish a girl/womn's age just by glancing at her knickers in a fuzzy, poorly lit picture??? you sir are a god!
heh, that's what consent is about, buddy. if you have consent, you have a signature, on a model contract (which they can only sign themselves if they're 18+). so it's all legit.
__________________
salsbury is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2002, 10:10 AM   #23
SykkBoy
Jesus loves bacon
 
SykkBoy's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sin City, Motherfucker
Posts: 19,969
Quote:
Originally posted by salsbury


heh, that's what consent is about, buddy. if you have consent, you have a signature, on a model contract (which they can only sign themselves if they're 18+). so it's all legit.
psst, re-read the post I was repsonding too....he was claiming that he felt it was ok to videotape an upskirt of someone over 18, just that it was "wrong" if they were udnerage....how does one judge the age of the person when looking up their skirt? these women were being videotaped without their consent....
SykkBoy is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote
Post New Thread Reply
Go Back   GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum > >

Bookmarks



Advertising inquiries - marketing at gfy dot com

Contact Admin - Advertise - GFY Rules - Top

©2000-, AI Media Network Inc



Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000- Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.