Wtf!!! Cp Or What!!!!!!!!
 

OK I am going through sites looking for different sites to promote and I come across this tour!!!!

http://www.boygirlbang.com/visitors/...railers/68.wmv

Now Watch this shit and listen carefully!! well not to careful you dont have to!!! I dont care if it is fake it is still Illegal!!! This is fucked up and Deserves to be shut fucking down!!!!

Rot in hell!!

That's ridiculous. I don't care if she is 30, do not fucking say she is 16.

They popped Max on that line. Even though he got out of it, it cost him BANK in legal fees.

but didn't they have the funny fat guy who went off as soon as he got touched video.

had to watch it twice to catch it... now theyre gonna take a closer look at reality sites cuz of this guy's fuckup. totally wrong.

Its totally wrong, fix it you jerk off's. On another note WTF with the brotha who cant get up his 4.5" cock. AND he's on a video. TRY AGAIN:1orglaugh

Love the sig :thumbsup

Playing with fire

Good lord. Not only is it there, but it's emphasized! Bastards :321GFY

Dayum, thats pretty bold.

It is not illegal in the United States. Stupid, but not illegal.

Child porn means people under 18 involved in porn.

It doesn't mean people pretending to be under 18.

Ever hear of the Constitution or the Supreme Court? How about movies like American Pie?

It's a stupid move by the site, because they are asking for trouble. However, to be child porn, there has to be a child involved.

What it does mean is that it's not acceptable under Visa's brand image regulations.

of course its illegal in the US

what do you do for a living ... wash cars?

Its not illegal in the US.

Check out Ken Park - mainstreamish movie, actual sex scene, actors playing minors. (btw, the same movie would be illegal in Australia - Ken Park was just refused classification and cant be shown here because of the actual sex with actors portraying minors - if it was simulated it would be ok)

Having said that .... I still think its wrong

Do you read the news much? Do you follow major court cases?

It's not illegal. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled on this very issue within the last year.

Read this:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/sc...al.child.porn/

Do you want me to vacuum the inside too? :)

ok. i am going to go rent "ass fucked 13 year olds."

- oh wait. i cant. there is no such thing.



you are talking about "virtual child pornography" where the image is manipulated to simulate a child.

i am too tired to go look up the details but i am 99.9% sure that you absolutely cannot say that a girl is underage and then show her in sexually explicit poses or acts.

[ps... how do i get that new car smell again?]

Anyone seen the movie "Kids"?

How about American Beauty with Mena Suvari and Kevin Spacey on the couch?

Or the indie movie Fat Girl. Some underage girl gets raped. I think the actress really is underage too.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/FatG...67/reviews.php

Sec. 2256. - Definitions for chapter



For the purposes of this chapter, the term -

(1)

''minor'' means any person under the age of eighteen years;

(2)

''sexually explicit conduct'' means actual or simulated -

(A)

sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;

(B)

bestiality;

(C)

masturbation;

(D)

sadistic or masochistic abuse; or

(E)

lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

(3)

''producing'' means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;

(4)

''organization'' means a person other than an individual;

(5)

''visual depiction'' includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image;

(6)

''computer'' has the meaning given that term in section 1030 of this title;

(7)

''custody or control'' includes temporary supervision over or responsibility for a minor whether legally or illegally obtained;

(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, or appears to be , of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(C)

such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

(D)

such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

even if it's not illegal, still its fucked up and shouldn't happen in first place.

So we know what he does, what business are you in? :1orglaugh

you are not talking about images or movies where her genitals are shown in a sexually explicit manner.

That would account for 10%+ of the stuff for sale on the net and if you spoke to some people they would say 99%

She's playing a wild crazy 16 year old. Like in real life that would never happen. We know US girls never do any of that stuff. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

highly illegal and stupid at the same time...

The Supreme Court has ruled, it's not illegal.

yes very stupid,what we need now is a couple of paysites having models on videos to say" hi, i'm 16, hi i'm 14".......

These are quotes from the law that was found unconstitutional:

(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and...

Look familiar?

http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cppa.text.html

Again, I think the website is stupid for what they are doing, and Kimmy seems to be saying they could lose their processing, but there is a difference between real child porn and being stupid.

is "Supreme Court" the name of your Russian processor?

Everyone watch the movie " Bully "

Go read a review on it even....

Yes, anyone who quotes the Supreme Court is a child pornographer now.

Go tell Larry Flynt what you think of him. :)

you are still talking about something different. the law has not changed. you are talking about using images of a minor and manipulating images of a minor. that has nothing to do with saying "hi, I'm Cindy and i just turned 13, please come watch me take a cock in all holes"

You are still wrong, but I love you anyways. :)

Here is a comment from the article on the case that I linked to earlier:

The opinion cited several artistically significant instances in which teenage sex was portrayed, including William Shakespeare's play "Romeo & Juliet," and the recent movies "Traffic" and "American Beauty."
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/sc...al.child.porn/

Nothing to do with computers in those cases, which the court specifically cited, when deciding to overturn the law.

The court specifically had problems with the idea that a person pretending to be underage having sex was illegal under the law.

Your turn. :)

ok.

they are talking about "Computer generated images" - i.e. "virtual pornography"

i was not aware that they abolished the entire Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 if thats what you are saying. as i recall and read (skim) i see that it says what i thought it was about... "computer generated images"

Lol, who cares..

It doesn't really matter what the law says...

They have the 'community standards' deal to fall back on and the 'probable cause' excuse when they come knock on your door, take all of your equipment, arrest you, then break your bank by making you prove to the court that you're innocent.

Ok.. you're innocent.. you win...
You're broke as Hell now, have to move because
of guilt by local news media... but you win...
Guess that'll show em...

Yes, it's stupid, someone wants to get pinched.

New law:

18USC3395:

1) If, in the context or ordinary activities required for living, in said context:

a) An individual obtains pleasure
b) An individual violates the laws of Moses
c) An individual fails self-flagellation for said violations

Said individual shall be sentenced to life in prison without parole.


-doug

Suppose someone downloads a video of an 18+ year-old girl claiming to be 16. Then years later a computer repair guy finds it and calls the cops, and the cpu owner can't remember where he got the video. In the end a jury is presented with a porn video of a girl claiming to be 16. What happens then?

The only reason I bring this up is because I was going through some newsgroup archives the other day and came across a story of a guy who was caught with several xxx pics of girls who the police thought where between 16-20 in appearance, but there was no way of knowing who they really where. So they slapped him with a possession of CP charge. He took a plea bargain (fines, cpu taken, sex offender list) because it would have cost $6,000 to have a professional testify what he thought their ages were.

Now just imagine if this guy had been caught with one of the said videos. You can put a professional on the stand all you want. The bottom line is the girl in the video says she's underage. You never know what a jury will do.

This stuff should NOT be spread around for obvious reasons.

whoever runs that site has big balls and a small brain

Mr.Fiction is right. Simulated child porn is not currently a crime. What the Supremes say goes. There is no victim when someone over 18 says they are 16. While there are people trying to make "virtual child porn" illegal with separate laws.

stupid. stupid. stupid.
they DESERVE to have the FBI seize their office and all their equipment for 10 months and go through all their age verification files piece by piece.

Prosecutors have a lot of ways to skin a cat.
Obscenity ... another route.
Think about it ... fuck what the midwestern soccer mom thinks ... you're offending folks in the industry lol
painting a big red X on your back ... brilliant
frontline

Fuckin idiots!

Seems to be silly season lately. Are these guys related to the freeadultcheck and nightsurfer guys?

looks like it's fixed now.. I dont hear it.

Stupid is right. It's not like they couldn't have used 18 in their trailer as her age... that's not old enough to drink either.

Which brings up another point, if she's not actually 21 then they are contributing to the delinquency of a minor as well, which is a misdemeanor in all states and in certain cases becomes a felony in others.

It says it on the screen, in a graphic and also shows a fake driver's license with DOB as 1987.

Has anyone contacted these guys and told them to fix that shit?

LOL!! Well you can still see they SAY she is 16!!! As well as the fucking stupid ID! Says the same thing!

i found it funny, bitch thought there was gonna be a black snake
up her ass, and all she got was to nibble on a fuckin blunt clip.

Thats fuckin funny, as far as legal goes, it aint for us to worry
about, as long as you aint the guy running it, dont fuckin cry.

Stupid is as stupid does.

None of our traffic will go to a program that can't manage to get its shit together.

Chapo from adultinternetlaw.com quoted from a post on Ynot:

?If a photographer license a photo set to a producer (could by a website producer or a magazine) without adding context could that sale be deemed distribution of obscenity??

The answer really depends on the approach of the prosecutor. If the images are the key to the prosecution, then the photographer will face a fairly high exposure risk because the photographer created the images. For instance, if the prosecutor claims that pictures of youngish looking 18 year olds is obscene because the girls are made to appear like minors, then there is very good chance the photographer will be brought into the criminal action.