Looks Like 'PEDO' shit to me.. bastards
 

Check this page I saw on the hun

http://www.hyperfree.com/amateur/sexyaction/2/

Look at the bottom banner, shit looks like 'pedo' crap
to me and CCBill allows this shit.


Crazy ass world we live in.

if you think it's something illegal, don't make a link to it goddammit

That's Met-Art Photography. Their 2257 is here: http://www.met-art.com/disclaimer.htm


"MET-ART.com - DISCLAIMER:
All models displayed on the site are 18 years or older. The owners and operators of this Website are not the primary producer (as that term is defined in 18 USC section 2257) of any of the visual content contained in the Website. MET ART works closely with several American Lawyers. They work and review this site on a daily basis, to make sure it always complies with US Laws. MET ART is located in the USA, hosted in the USA, billed in the USA, has been operating for 6 years now. MET ART is certified by the compliance dep. of: CCBILL, PayPal and IBill, all three are US based companies.

The Custodian of Records for this Website is: S. Lawrence
ESQ. PO box 2377
New York, N.Y 10185 "

Not even like it's purchased or home produced content. It's marked.

I didn't think you could use a PO box as your 2257 records address..

You can't , it is a requirement in the USA to
have a physical address.

Violation # 1 I would suppose

that isnt a MET art offical banner

I did not think so either, its pretty iffy..

Aha, I was wondering when that crossover happened. I KNEW Met-Art didn't used to have anything about 18+ in their legal statements years ago... I thought it was still the same until about a year ago when I re-read it and it then it DID state 18+. I always forget about archive.org in times like these :)

I know this board is full of "pedo-vigilantes", so maybe it's just me, but I don't find anything wrong with the beautiful photos of Hamilton, Sturges, et al. I wonder why exactly MET changed their tune. I can buy Hamilton's books with naked adolescents in bookstores... it's not "kiddie porn".

Do those bookstores advertise on hardcore pornography sites? Or can you buy Hamilton's books in your local porn store?

True, but anything can be considered erotic to those who have an interest in it. Should the intention really take precedence over the content? Who really cares if it's jack-off material for hebephiles?

They're already trying to take away the artistic merit defence for nude art in Canada. I just hate to see these issues overriding freedom of expression.

you're just seeing what's already in your mind...

Although, as a side note, a lot of places are clearly catering to that market... many sites sell "nudist videos", preteen drawings, etc. right alongside Hamilton's books and movies.

That banner sure looks like it...those girls look 10 years old:BangBang:

There is some underage models on met art.

I thought CCBill made them get rid of all of that. But yes, I can remember a few years back when they did and it was a topic every week.

I have been running met-art banners on a few of my paysites for a couple of years and their rebill conversions are outstanding.
I have made well over 100k from them.
Now,...I only ran through the material once (way too comprehensive to see it all) and did see a few border line images, but nothing I would call CP.
Now CCbill as good as they may be, makes exeptions as in this case. They also do not process celeb sites, but guess who Mr. "Hank" Skin uses?
Double standards are welcomed when you bring in the big bank.

Met-Art is not CP you fucktard. You try to damage their bussines with your retarded assumptions. Post proof or shut the fuck up.

Well fucking said. Why people try and connect this board to anything that could even be remotely considered as illegal is beyond me.

Lens, please start banning these idiots.

ccbill processes that?

I hope that was written rhetorically.
:hi

I think it was mosteroticteens.com used to post pics that looked underage on my picture post years back and it never had the 18+ bit on it.

No, it has to be a physical address.

Their ethics have been questioned for years. They basically will do anything for $$:(

What's legal is legal. What's the difference between a 17 year old posing nude and an 18 year old posing nude? The legality, that's it.

"little girls" is not appropriate text for a banner in this business

im going to start using the term "little girls" on every page i push teens on!

yay! cany wait to see conversions go UP UP UP!!

you people pushing this shit this way know what you are doing and enjoy it.

"little girls" only means one thing.

i love how you guys cant stand bondage or anything fantasy but absolutely love 11 year old looking girls posing nude. Oh but its called "ART" all my years in art school never saw MET or nude teens as art.

disgusting.

My point exactly.. and Fletch has the same views as me.

It's sick.. regardless of their exact known ages.

My point was a Banner representing Met-Art and
CCBill allowing its name 'titled' with such work
wether legal or not.

I don't know the age of the so called 'model' on this
banner, but I am assuming they are 'legal' since
Met-Art claims to have models over 18 y/o.

AND WE ALL KNOW THAT WHAT IS ON THE INTERNET IS
100% TRUE AND FACTUAL...ahahahha

If you think this you need :helpme


Oh, I am related to the late great Mr. Boku Mogkabetu
and I inherited $10,000,000 and I need your help!.. HA!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe when your ten year old daughter wants to express her freedom by having nude pictures of herself on the Internet you will see the real picture.

Or maybe you will be like some of the parents of these children and pushing them to do it for the money.

These kind of pictures of a naked child could represent a crime. A chlid forced or tricked to pose for sick peoples pleasure.

Let's not confuse it with art.

I've seen this on more dubious sites.

It states they are 18(+) NOW, but not about their age when the content was produced. The content could be 4 years old....

It's a sneaky way to put it like that..

That is hot.

I don't think Met-Art can be held responsible if someone creates their own banner about "little girls."

I've seen the members area of Met-Art and at least these days there's nothing questionable in there.

I missed that part. You are correct, the term "little girls' is fucking sick and DIRECTLY looking for pedo traffic.

AMEN