GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Is this site Child Porn? or not? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=81970)

Validus 10-10-2002 04:19 PM
Is this site Child Porn? or not?
 
http://www.teensexnude.com/real-17-girls.htm

IS THAT CHILD PORN OR AM I FUCKING STUPID?
The girl at the top is NOT 18.... or... have I lost my mind?

[Labret] 10-10-2002 04:20 PM
ahhh the old Club Seventeen argument. Hold on, its gonna be a bumpy ride.

Dildozer 10-10-2002 04:22 PM
this has gotta be kiddie porn
jesus fuckin christ

Validus 10-10-2002 04:22 PM
That girl at the top... can't be 18... no way... and it is hosted ... that picture.. from a US server.

RATBOY 10-10-2002 04:22 PM
why the hell would anyone click on that link and get shit on thier hard drive on the off chance it is, hmmm?

Validus 10-10-2002 04:23 PM
WHO CARES..... lets get this site shut down... thats all I want. I called the host and they just hung up on me.

cotsios 10-10-2002 04:25 PM
REPORT THEM AT http://www.asacp.org/

Also msg DYNAMICHOSTING.COM and tell them that this site has child porn on it.

Why DYNAMICHOSTING.COM ?
Because they host them as i can see.

Cya

Validus 10-10-2002 04:27 PM
I have done both.. I did that 2 days ago... they hung up on me today.

gothweb 10-10-2002 04:27 PM
http://www.asacp.com

mjrools23 10-10-2002 04:30 PM
i wouldnt be suprised if she was 18...i wouldnt be suprised if she was 14 either

Theo 10-10-2002 04:48 PM
at the bottom of the page

18 U.S.C. 2257 All persons depicted herein were over the age of 18 years at the time they were photographed or filmed.

All content of Club Seventeen follows the us. law.
The girl in the photo seems to wear a c17 t-shirt.

Reporting for CP a site that is legal is not smart movement for the industry.

Fletch XXX 10-10-2002 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by mjrools23
i wouldnt be suprised if she was 18...i wouldnt be suprised if she was 14 either
and im not surprised you think this way.

:stoned

Mr.Fiction 10-10-2002 04:57 PM
Club 17 only uses legal content. However, they can't control what their affiliates do. They can cancel them for breaking the rules, but that's about it.

PornoBug 10-10-2002 05:07 PM
It has been suggested that early material from Seventeen was borderline, however I am quite sure that the people at Seventeen dot their i's and cross their t's when it comes to legality. They have been in business for a long time and do not take risks when it comes to doing things by the book.

Club Seventeen have spent many years mastering the art of making 18 year olds look very young. They make high quality material and I'm sure the girl at the top of the page mentioned is a more recent Seventeen Model, I think she appears in an issue of Seventeen Magazine which is legally obtainable over the counter in Australia and many other countries.

That said, in Australia the law now provides to prohibit sexually explicit material which depicts people who "appear to be under 18". Obviously this is entirely subjective and raises all sorts of questions!

The issue is a thorny one, you can have models who are above 18 and appear much younger - conversely you can have underage models who look older. How this issue gets resolved is beyond me.

One thing I am sure about is that the people at VISA who start approving URL content will be much more conservative than most of our industry - material that looks dodgy, even if perfectly legal, is sure to get the chop!

So many questions are raised here it probably warrants a new thread!:warning

Ted 10-10-2002 05:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Validus
http://www.teensexnude.com/real-17-girls.htm
look who's a sponsor on the front page of the site

http://www.teensexnude.com/

UnseenWorld 10-10-2002 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Validus
WHO CARES..... lets get this site shut down... thats all I want. I called the host and they just hung up on me.
Well I care, for one. You're probably going to get it up the tailpipe from all the people who have told board member OVER AND OVER AND OVER that if you think something is CP, DON'T POST A LINK. Instead, report it.

Why is this so important? Well, for one thing, CP, under US law, is called a "strict liability offense." What does this mean? It means that having possession of it (which includes visited links, whatever is in your cache, deleted files, etc.) is a felony and that there is no defense of "I didn't know it was there" or "I got it by mistake."

Now do you understand why we don't want to visit a link to see if it might be CP?

(And my own additional advice is that if you report it, do it using an anonymizer. Otherwise, you may find that your own computer is being confiscated as evidence and you might have to provide age information for any and every image they can find on your hard drive. If that doesn't sound like fun, be smart when you report it. I know a lot of people will say that if you report it to ASACP they will maintain your anonymity, but no one has ever explained to me why it would be impossible for a judge to issue a search warrant for their computer and their report records.)

Also, let me point out that a girl doesn't look like a specific age; she looks like a range of ages. ("She could be 16, she could be 19"). I work with a lot of 18 and 19 year olds. Naturally, I verify their ages and keep records. CP is a very serious charge, and the consequences can be dire even for someone who it turns out was within the law. So, let's be a little less hysterical next time.

The following girl is 22, but I know a lot of people would wonder if she's even old enough to pose from this shot. If you saw her in another photo, she'd look older:

http://www.girlsdotcom.com/Temp/LizExample03.jpg

This girl is 25, even though in my recent content contest, it seemed like most of the guesses placed her at 18 or 19 (a 6 or 7 year discrepancy):

http://www.girlsdotcom.com/Temp/FaithPic.jpg

The point: It's not cool to raise this issue lightly, and it's even less so to post a link of possible CP and ask others to take a look at it.

UnseenWorld 10-10-2002 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Sexfind
in Australia the law now provides to prohibit sexually explicit material which depicts people who "appear to be under 18". Obviously this is entirely subjective and raises all sorts of questions!
I think US prosecutors would like this latitude as well, but so far, as I understand it, the judges haven't been buying. Sort of like the problem with virtual CP. At one time the argument was that CP required the abuse of a child to make it. When virtual CP raised its ugly head, that argument obviously no longer applied, so they've been fishing for another excuse to prosecute such cases. Now the argument is that virtual CP can be used as "grooming" material to soften victims. (Actually, I think anime may be doing this already, but what the heck?)

Much as we all would like to stop CP, not only to protect children but to deflect criticism from out industry, we also need to fight the gradual erosion of our civil rights. As Bill Maher has said, "When they come to take your rights away, they'll do so in the name of the children."

We should love our children enough to make sure they are born into a world at least as free as the one we were born into, if not freer.

tree 10-10-2002 06:42 PM
both of those chicks look like theyre over 21

hitman699 10-10-2002 06:59 PM
Club seventeen uses legal content and is an over the counter magazine producer in europe. All 18+.

psyko514 10-10-2002 07:06 PM
way to repeat something that several other people have already said...

NetBabe 10-10-2002 07:07 PM
The top portion looks horribly similar. That grosses me out a bit, but the entire bottom set all look over 18 to me!

UnseenWorld 10-10-2002 08:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by tree
both of those chicks look like theyre over 21
To you, perhaps, but the second chick was routinely guessed to be 18 or 19 by people trying to guess her birthdate.

Paul Markham 10-10-2002 11:39 PM
We shoot for Seventeen and they are a damn site more fussy than most Webmasters about IDs.

Is the girl 14 or 18 the only way to know is the 2257. and that should not be left in the hands of "Experts" who do not even recognise a fake:BangBang:

Paul Markham 10-10-2002 11:43 PM
I don't know if this got put up, with all the troube yesterday. If it did it got lost and it is important. Especially in the light of this thread.

Recently there was a thread about documentation and what was required. There were a lot of ?Experts? giving advice, some of which I thought was dangerous.

So I put my hand in my pocket, well not got the bill yet, and paid for a lawyer practicing in publishing to look at it and give me an opinion.

Here is what was said.

Quote:
At 9:07 AM +0200 10/7/02, you wrote:

>I feel that as a publisher he needs to have the documents, even though he is
>not commissioning the shoot.
>However the real reason is it proves the shoot was professional, and the age
>of the model.

Paul,

I looked at the statute and regulations again, and I believe that your interpretation is the correct one. (The age of the model is clearly the motivation for the record keeping requirements, thus the reason the requirement was passed as part of the Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990.)

The problem is that the statute is ambiguous. However, the implementing regulations are much more concrete.

In the regulations, 28 C.F.R. 75, in Section 75.1(c) a producer is defined as:

"(c) Producer means any person, including any individual, corporation, or other organization, who is a primary producer or a secondary producer.
(1) A primary producer is any person who actually films, videotapes, or photographs a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct.
(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct."

A photographer would fit under (c)(1). A print publication or Web site operator that only uses other producer's pictures would fit under (c)(2). A publisher that creates and uses its own content could meet both definitions.

Section 75.2 provides that:

"(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter that contains one or more visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made after November 1, 1990 shall, for each performer portrayed in such visual depiction, create and maintain records [...]"

The records that must be kept are:

"(1) The legal name and date of birth of each performer, obtained by the producer's examination of an identification document, as defined by 18 U.S.C. 1028(d). For any performer portrayed in such a depiction made after May 26, 1992, the records shall also include a legible copy of the identification document examined and, if that document does not contain a recent and recognizable picture of the performer, a legible copy of a picture identification card.
(2) Any name, other than each performer's legal name, ever used by the performer, including the performer's maiden name, alias, nickname, stage name, or professional name. For any performer portrayed in such a depiction made after May 26, 1992, such names shall be indexed by the title or identifying number of the book, magazine, film, videotape, or other matter."

Section 75.2 does not draw a distinction between primary and secondary producers. However, 75.2(b) provides a specific requirement for secondary producers:

"(b) A producer who is a secondary producer as defined in Sec. 75.1(c) may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in Sec. 75.1(c), copies of the records described in paragraph (a) of this section. Such a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the records."

Thus the regulations not only require that secondary producers have a set of records, but also that the records by traceable back to the primary producer. They must be available for inspection at the producer's place of business (75.4), listed as available at a street address not a P.O. box (75.4), indexed (75.3), contain the information contained in 75.6-- including "if the producer is an
organization, the statement shall also contain the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization who is responsible for maintaining the records required by this part," and kept as long as the business is operating and for five years even after a business is dissolved (75.4).

Any primary or secondary publisher should get a copy and read 18 U.S.C 2257 and 29 C.F.R. 75, as getting the record keeping and display requirements wrong does carry potential penalties that include fines and imprisonment.

Now, you said you wanted this in a form to put up on your Web site this is the basic content, in what form would you like it for your site? I can also fill in a few of the surrounding details if you feel it would be valuable.
Now it?s up to you who you go with, I would suggest that you ask a lawyer.

michel 10-11-2002 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by UnseenWorld


Well I care, for one. You're probably going to get it up the tailpipe from all the people who have told board member OVER AND OVER AND OVER that if you think something is CP, DON'T POST A LINK. Instead, report it.

Why is this so important? Well, for one thing, CP, under US law, is called a "strict liability offense." What does this mean? It means that having possession of it (which includes visited links, whatever is in your cache, deleted files, etc.) is a felony and that there is no defense of "I didn't know it was there" or "I got it by mistake."

Now do you understand why we don't want to visit a link to see if it might be CP?

(And my own additional advice is that if you report it, do it using an anonymizer. Otherwise, you may find that your own computer is being confiscated as evidence and you might have to provide age information for any and every image they can find on your hard drive. If that doesn't sound like fun, be smart when you report it. I know a lot of people will say that if you report it to ASACP they will maintain your anonymity, but no one has ever explained to me why it would be impossible for a judge to issue a search warrant for their computer and their report records.)

Also, let me point out that a girl doesn't look like a specific age; she looks like a range of ages. ("She could be 16, she could be 19"). I work with a lot of 18 and 19 year olds. Naturally, I verify their ages and keep records. CP is a very serious charge, and the consequences can be dire even for someone who it turns out was within the law. So, let's be a little less hysterical next time.

The following girl is 22, but I know a lot of people would wonder if she's even old enough to pose from this shot. If you saw her in another photo, she'd look older:

http://www.girlsdotcom.com/Temp/LizExample03.jpg

This girl is 25, even though in my recent content contest, it seemed like most of the guesses placed her at 18 or 19 (a 6 or 7 year discrepancy):

http://www.girlsdotcom.com/Temp/FaithPic.jpg

The point: It's not cool to raise this issue lightly, and it's even less so to post a link of possible CP and ask others to take a look at it.
These girls DO look like 22 and 25 to me!

UnseenWorld 10-11-2002 12:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by michel


These girls DO look like 22 and 25 to me!
This was not a poll. I already said that in the contest, the second girl, for example, was routinely guessed to be 18 or 19.

If it's a pat on the head you want, fine.

cheekycherry 10-11-2002 01:10 AM
Only 22 and 25?

They look more like 32 and 35 !!!

michel 10-11-2002 01:15 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by cheekycherry
Only 22 and 25?

They look more like 32 and 35 !!!
This was not a poll, bla, bla, bla :sleep
My gues is the ones who tought these women were 18 or 19 were like 60 themselves! :1orglaugh

Spliceragain 10-11-2002 01:22 AM
I need to see more photos of the brunette :eatmouse

Darren 10-11-2002 01:25 AM
to me i dont care whether that girl at the top is 18, it is OBVIOUSLY aiming at the child porn market with pictures like that, i dont see a problem with making a 19-20 year women look in her early teens but to make them look like a kid like it shows in that picture is fucking disgusting.

cat 10-11-2002 01:40 AM
he nick where are you?

Theo 10-11-2002 01:56 AM
Darren, what makes this picture

http://www.teensexnude.com/images/du...romobanner.jpg

targetting pedophiles?

notjoe 10-11-2002 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Validus
http://www.teensexnude.com/real-17-girls.htm

IS THAT CHILD PORN OR AM I FUCKING STUPID?
The girl at the top is NOT 18.... or... have I lost my mind?

Dont listen to some of these guys here. Looking at that page i would say that is most definitely child porn, however, with the way 14 yr old sluts are acting maybe we should lower the age of consent.

I highly doubt anyone would get into trouble for going to that site to confirm what you're saying and also file a report to the ISP. With enough complaints they'll get shut down.

I know all this because i used to run 15 Free Hosting servers on which we would get a lot of people informing us about child porn, even the police would call us up if they needed info on so meone or found a url we didnt know about.

When you're trying to deal with the problem instead of ignoring it or forgetting about it is then you usally get something done.

Joe

Darren 10-11-2002 05:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Soul_Rebel
Darren, what makes this picture

http://www.teensexnude.com/images/du...romobanner.jpg

targetting pedophiles?
obviously as you already know, i was refering to the pictures at the top of this page.

http://www.teensexnude.com/real-dutch-teen-girls.htm

hahmike 10-11-2002 07:10 AM
of course she's over fucking 18. jesus.

there's a girl in my economics class. she's 20. she is 5ft tall, near titless, and has the build of a 12 year old.

same old shit, over and over.

Tipsy 10-11-2002 07:23 AM
Apart from someone really being stupid with their sig there's a lot of people not been in this business long who need to get a clue. If the girl is a club-17 model then she's over 18. Simple as that. It doesn't matter how she looks or what age she looks like she's over 18.

The whole moral issue of whether 18 year olds who look that young should be used is a totally different issue. As far as legality goes all club-17 models are past the legal age of consent. Anyone doubting it really needs to learn exactly what they're talking about before spouting off.

im4u2nvme 10-11-2002 07:31 AM
I can't believe my eye's WOW she is no more tha 13 yrs old , and i can'y believe no one can do anything about these fuckin cock suckers regarding these inocent young femals, this really makes you wanna think about having kids:feels-hot

Hooterdog 10-11-2002 07:31 AM
<BR>
like Tracy Lords?

Dopy 10-11-2002 08:11 AM
2 years with Payserve and I know all C17 models inside the site and in promo content.

All C17 models are legal, the one shown at the head of the page has small tits a skinny body and a young looking face, thats all.

If you have a problem contact http://www.payserve.com and they will put you right with any questions.

Club 17 is not full of models that look 15, sign up and take a peek.

http://www.clubseventeen.com

pink_in_the_middle 10-11-2002 09:43 AM
Those girl in the pics you've posted are at least 18. No doubt. This is not kiddie porn .
Some of them look older then me lol. I think most of them are at least 19 is not way older. Just because a girl looks young and has small breasts doesn't mean their underage. But however in some countries child porn in legal. So yes it might be but I don't think they look underage at all. Some girls just look really young.

I'm 23 and I get carded going to clubs,ordering drinks and buying smokes. I ask them how old do they think I am and they reply "16-20". I take this as a compliment though cause when I'm 40 or 50 I'll look like I'm 25 :)

UnseenWorld 10-11-2002 09:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Darren
to me i dont care whether that girl at the top is 18, it is OBVIOUSLY aiming at the child porn market with pictures like that, i dont see a problem with making a 19-20 year women look in her early teens but to make them look like a kid like it shows in that picture is fucking disgusting.
I am not looking at the page in question for reasons mentioned by me and others, but I don't want to see an erosioni of The First Amendment. I don't want to see someone thrown in jail because he took a picture of a 20 year old in a Little Bo Peep outfit, and what about the diaper fetish? Shall we outlaw that and make the photographers and models sex offenders under the law?

UnseenWorld 10-11-2002 10:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Tipsy
Apart from someone really being stupid with their sig there's a lot of people not been in this business long who need to get a clue. If the girl is a club-17 model then she's over 18. Simple as that. It doesn't matter how she looks or what age she looks like she's over 18.

The whole moral issue of whether 18 year olds who look that young should be used is a totally different issue. As far as legality goes all club-17 models are past the legal age of consent. Anyone doubting it really needs to learn exactly what they're talking about before spouting off.
Once a girl is 18, she has a right to work. Whether she dresses up or down age-wise is a First Amendment issue. Real pedophiles know where to go to find real CP. The idea that Club 17 "appeals" to pedophiles is absurd. A real pedophile would rather look at a fully-dressed child in a Sears Catalog than at a person he knows must be at least 18 in Club Seventeen.

pink_in_the_middle 10-11-2002 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Soul_Rebel
Darren, what makes this picture

http://www.teensexnude.com/images/du...romobanner.jpg

targetting pedophiles?
lol Those WOMEN are deffinalty WAY above 18!!! More like 25 and up


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123