ASACP Says this is not Child porn according to US laws!

[awu]

I recently recieved some spam which was claiming to have underage models, so I checked it out to see which URL I could submit to ASACP. I submitted the url and the next day I received a reply from ASACP saying:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have previously reported this site to both the U.S. Customs
Service and the F.B.I.

We've received numerous complaints in regards to this site in the
past, even though we consider these types of photos very unaccaptable,
it may not be considered child pornography, please visit this URL for
detailed information on child pornography laws...
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this is wrong!!! Judge for yourselves....
http://users.xxx-clubs.org/divinecuties/index.html

The owner of the site claims that it is ART! Art my ass!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This site does not contain any pornographic images.
This site contains images depicting nudity. These images have been
carefully reviewed by our attorneys to comply with 18 U.S.C. 2252,et seq.
All content submitted on a site is a work of art.
There is no age limit for work of art
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there nothing we can do?

[klik]

Originally posted by awu

Is there nothing we can do?

Forget about it.. let the Russians have their fun.

[quiet]

fbi sting site?

[Xplicit]

So fucking wrong

I wonder what kind of sales these sites pull.

[Number1Thumb]

Originally posted by quiet
fbi sting site?

Its a thought

[Gutterboy]

Well no shit.. how could you possibly think that site is kiddie porn? If pictures of underaged girls in various states of undress were illegal we'd be throwing catalog and film makers in jail by the dozen.

For it to be pornography, it has to be, well, pornography. I believe the definition includes lewd exhibition of genetalia, prurient appeal without artistic or scientific merit etc.

[mastamindz]

We need our own GFY SWAT team to take this shit down.

[Mr.Fiction]

I'm not clicking that link.

You shouldn't post links to underage shit on GFY because someone might click it before they realize what's going on.

[Number1Thumb]

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
I'm not clicking that link.

You shouldn't post links to underage shit on GFY because someone might click it before they realize what's going on.

Even if you click that link its pretty lame and pics are broken. Still I understand your point

[graphicdude]

I hope it is a FBI sting site you have to be a sick Pedo fuck to get off on undevelpoed little girls

[KRL]

The big problem is legally if you start prosecuting images of young girls where they have clothes on you have to go after the brick and mortar world that gets away with it as well.

There was a big case against the major book store chains about this very issue a couple years ago where they tried to prosecute Barnes & Noble, if I recall, for selling CP, because they had nude photography books featuring pre-teen and teen girls totally nude.
Barnes and Noble prevailed.

Then you have all the mail order catalogs, ad flyers and magazines that feature very young girls in bathing suits.

And of course you have the art world to deal with. Nude figurines, paintings, etc.

Then you have the legitimate young teen modeling agencies that have to shoot the girls in provactive poses for their portfolio sheets.

Then you have all those little girls pretending to be beauty pageant models that they've done shows and reports on.

Its a fine line and where do you draw the line? This is the problem with this issue.

[Paul Markham]

Has anyone thought of going to the CC processor?

I think you will find that easier than ASACP

[quiet]

Originally posted by KRL
The big problem is legally if you start prosecuting images of young girls where they have clothes on you have to go after the brick and mortar world that gets away with it as well.

There was a big case against the major book store chains about this very issue a couple years ago where they tried to prosecute Barnes & Noble, if I recall, for selling CP, because they had nude photography books featuring pre-teen and teen girls totally nude.
Barnes and Noble prevailed.

Then you have all the mail order catalogs, ad flyers and magazines that feature very young girls in bathing suits.

And of course you have the art world to deal with. Nude figurines, paintings, etc.

Then you have the legitimate young teen modeling agencies that have to shoot the girls in provactive poses for their portfolio sheets.

Then you have all those little girls pretending to be beauty pageant models that they've done shows and reports on.

Its a fine line and where do you draw the line? This is the problem with this issue.

looks nude to me

[awu]

quiet's right these girls aren't in bathing suites, the first cover girls are topless! I have never seen any catalogue with topless childen! Did you see the Models page?

IMHO if they are photos of children semi naked in seductive poses that is child porn!

Gutterboy do you know what Pornography means! It means: Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal

Jail them all I say!

[Gutterboy]

Originally posted by awu
quiet's right these girls aren't in bathing suites, the first cover girls are topless! I have never seen any catalogue with topless childen! Did you see the Models page?

IMHO if they are photos of children semi naked in seductive poses that is child porn!

Gutterboy do you know what Pornography means! It means: Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal

Jail them all I say!

Look up the Barnes & Noble case sometime. They sold two books with nude pictures of underage boys and girls, and they beat the child porn rap. Underage nudes do not automatically equal kiddie porn under US law. As KRL said, the problem is its very difficult to draw a consistent legal line in the sand between art and erotica.

[stocktrader23]

Originally posted by awu
quiet's right these girls aren't in bathing suites, the first cover girls are topless! I have never seen any catalogue with topless childen! Did you see the Models page?

IMHO if they are photos of children semi naked in seductive poses that is child porn!

Gutterboy do you know what Pornography means! It means: Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal

Jail them all I say!

I've said this on here many times. Regardless of how wrong these sites are or what purpose they serve they do appear to be within the law. Candid photos of anyone nude aren't considered pornography. Bitch, complain, whatever but it isn't going to change. Like it was pointed out, where would you draw the line. Are all pictures of my child nude cp? Nope. Same difference here.

[Mr.Fiction]

Even if they are nude, it would be almost impossible to prosecute them if they are art pictures with "artistic value".

Many of the famous historical painters you can name have painted nude girls under the age of 18. Many well regarded contemporary photographers take these type of pictures as well. I saw a special on HBO or Showtime a while ago about some woman artist who publishes highly acclaimed pictures of her kids naked as they are growing up.

Would museums be shut down too if they went after the websites?

I'm not saying these websites probably aren't run by, and visited by, sick fucks, I'm just saying that the alternative may be worse than what's going on now.

This is all assuming you're talking about the "artistic" nude stuff.

[Gutterboy]

Barnes & Noble booksellers indicted in Alabama for kiddie porn:

http://archive.aclu.org/news/n021998b.html

Here is one of the books they were indicted for:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books



Art or child porn?

[manilaheat]

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
I'm not clicking that link.

You shouldn't post links to underage shit on GFY because someone might click it before they realize what's going on.

Opps. I already clicked it. I'll open the doors for the cops now so they kick them in ..

[awu]

If it was illegal I wouldn't have posted the link!

[Gutterboy]

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction

I'm not saying these websites probably aren't run by, and visited by, sick fucks, I'm just saying that the alternative may be worse than what's going on now.

Thats the issue in a nutshell. people get all rah rah to shut this and that site down, but in their righteous crusade to rid the internet of teenage nudie pics they don't think about what else these laws could be applied to once they're passed.

I tihnk its fairly obvious that once any censorship law is passed it will inevitably end up being interpreted as broadly as possible by moralizers like Asssssshahahahaha who think some statue with a tit showing is obscene.

[awu]

The site in question is designed for one purpose, to arouse men! That book cover is not! I see nothing sexual about that cover at all.

You must take this into context, look at their models page, they have naked girls, look like they might even be 18 then directly underneath they 8 year old girls!!! You cannot even compare that to the book cover.

The photos on that site are amateurish, just some guy with a digital camera, without a closeup I can't really say but I would assume some have the photos are family photos just scanned in with a scanner.

If that's art! I am frken artist too!!

By this reasoning I could design a full hardcore tour with legal models then place, 8 year old semi naked thumbnail teasers and I could call this art. Am I right in assuming this would be acceptable?

[stocktrader23]

Originally posted by awu
The site in question is designed for one purpose, to arouse men! That book cover is not! I see nothing sexual about that cover at all.

You must take this into context, look at their models page, they have naked girls, look like they might even be 18 then directly underneath they 8 year old girls!!! You cannot even compare that to the book cover.

The photos on that site are amateurish, just some guy with a digital camera, without a closeup I can't really say but I would assume some have the photos are family photos just scanned in with a scanner.

If that's art! I am frken artist too!!

By this reasoning I could design a full hardcore tour with legal models then place, 8 year old semi naked thumbnail teasers and I could call this art. Am I right in assuming this would be acceptable?

Define art.

[awu]

define art?

What's the meaning of life?

[stocktrader23]

Originally posted by awu


What's the meaning of life?

If the human body can't be considered art what the fuck can. But go ahead and come up with some other lame as fucking comment. It isn't going to make that porn under current law.

[awu]

I am glad I live in australia we can tell the difference down here!

[Corleone]

time to handle the prob when asacp is not able to do

[awu]

[Number1Thumb]

Originally posted by stocktrader23


If the human body can't be considered art what the fuck can. But go ahead and come up with some other lame as fucking comment. It isn't going to make that porn under current law.

BINGO!

[Loch]

How guys can actualy put up sites like that without someone beating them up is beyond me!

[Corleone]

"shoot 'em up just shoot 'em up whaaat"

i like this nas song :D

[Reak]

Fuck men, Childporn fucks up this biz.. better that site will killed soon

[Corleone]

here in germany its the same seen in the news..

ppl made a agency for advertising with bikini + topless + panty pics + bäääh with minors.. and put this online for "interested costumers" to view.. for 34.95 / month... sick !

absolute legal...

it's something wrong with the system

[KRL]

Originally posted by stocktrader23


Define art.

You hit the nail on the head.

[KRL]

Originally posted by Loch
How guys can actualy put up sites like that without someone beating them up is beyond me!

OK, I don't give a fuck about the site operators as much as the sleaze bag parents that are pimping their kids. You know damn well these little kids aren't showing up at photo studios and getting their checks alone.

The parents are the fucks that need to be hung out to dry even more than the weazle's running these sites.

How a father could let his little girl do that is incomprehensible to me. And if some scumball photographer did that to my little daughter without my knowledge fuck the law, he's going in the lake.

[KRL]

Another issue is the nudist families. I don't know how many there are worldwide. But it looks like there are over 50,000 nudist families in the US and I'm sure more.

This looks like the web site for biggest organization.

http://www.aanr.com/

A quote from their FAQ's.

Are children welcome at clubs?

Children are natural nudists and quickly take to it like ducks take to water. Most clubs welcome children and encourage families to join. At these clubs, you'll find activities and facilities for your kids to enjoy - and they'll thank you for taking them along. As always, we recommend that if you are bringing your children, you call ahead to ask the club about its activity program and facilities.

Then they say on there 40 million people have swam nude with other people around. i.e. skinny dipping.

[smack]

i wish I and only I was allowed to have the last say on any moral dilema. for example. weed - ok, legalize. that site - bad, if i were allowed to pass moral judgement the creators would br drug out into the street and vicious raped by a pack of prison inmates, then prompty shot in their face. i dunno it's such a damn clear line to me.

[InsaneMidget]

"You must be at least 18 years old, and the material presented on the website is for personal use only and you will never expose minors (below the age of 18) to this material."


If this is art, why must people be over 18? Can't anyone of any age look at "art"?

[awu]

OK, I don't give a fuck about the site operators as much as the sleaze bag parents that are pimping their kids. You know damn well these little kids aren't showing up at photo studios and getting their checks alone.

The parents are the fucks that need to be hung out to dry even more than the weazle's running these sites.

How a father could let his little girl do that is incomprehensible to me. And if some scumball photographer did that to my little daughter without my knowledge fuck the law, he's going in the lake.

100% Agreed

[=^..^=]

KRL is dead set right

the parents need locking up first and foremost

what kind of sick fucks are they?
I guess they use some old excuse liek they are too poor to affford a loaf of bread or whatever ...
well let THEM go fuck a dog or something if they are THAT hard up - but don't fucking put kids in front of the camera!!


sometimes it is hard to draw a line where the art stops and the porn begins

but this ISNT a museum - it's not one statue in a corner its an ENTIRE SITE of nude children (and I refuse to click the link , so I'm just going from what has been said)

why are there no nude adults? why are there no nude 80 year olds? no porn stars, no other "art work" - an erotic painting or anything else?
No its all NAKED CHILDREN!!
isn't it OBVIOUS what this is abotu??

so how the law can protect it is beyond my scope of reason!



shoot the fuckers now

[farbie]

This is a common argument against this type of content. It is unethical, immoral, exploits females, dangerous to children, and damaging to the very fabric of our society.

The Religious Right, The Moral Majority, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and company use the exact same argument against all porn/erotic materials.

Congratulations to those who have just stated that their beliefs should supercede the law. You're in very good company, with the same people that want to put us all out of business.

Think people, no matter how distasteful this type of site may be to you and me, it is legal and therefore deserving of the same protections of law under which we operate. Tear down those protections to narrow the material protected, and you'll find others who will narrow it even more until we're all out of business.

And if you're attempting to judge this site based on what the visitors to the site will think about while there, congrats again as you've just moved into the arena of regulating thoughts.

Open your fucking eyes. We of all people should support the rights of others to display materials that are offensive as long as it is legal. You don't have to support what they do, but their right to do it.

If we don't, then who will when the exact same argument is turned against us?

farbie

Flame away...

[noshit]

bow down to awu and BURN THEM IN HELL!

I recently recieved some spam which was claiming to have underage models, so I checked it out

You clicked into a site claiming underage models?
you are as bad as the guy that owns it.

I think this is wrong!!!

Judging by your heroic deeds; All mankind should be guided by what you think is right and wrong, not just GFY'ers!

The owner of the site claims that it is ART! Art my ass!

Right on! once we've rid the world of this trash, let's go after more scum of the earth like JOEL-PETER WITKIN. (May God Damn Him!)
Provided he meets your standards of objectionable art material of course.

Is there nothing we can do?

there is something we can do, have a contest to see who can scream the loudest about any words or material that offends them.

BTW Subjectivity spoke and said that YOU are the REAL piece of Art Work. is it wrong?

[Rich]

I got the same fucking spam

[notjoe]

Originally posted by graphicdude
I hope it is a FBI sting site you have to be a sick Pedo fuck to get off on undevelpoed little girls

traceroute to users.xxx-clubs.org (195.209.36.215), 64 hops max, 44 byte packets
1 H93.C250.tor.velocet.net (216.138.250.93) 5.891 ms 5.822 ms 5.767 ms
2 hadrian1.tor.velocet.net (216.138.223.1) 5.907 ms 6.475 ms 6.128 ms
3 hadrian9.ny.velocet.net (216.138.255.9) 16.903 ms 17.026 ms 17.829 ms
4 yipes1-velocet.ny.velocet.net (66.54.171.249) 20.143 ms 20.438 ms 19.503 ms
5 gige5-1-101.ipcolo1.NewYork1.Level3.net (64.156.82.5) 20.117 ms 19.662 ms 19.420 ms
6 ae0-54.bbr2.NewYork1.level3.net (64.159.17.98) 18.968 ms 18.858 ms 20.465 ms
7 so-0-2-0.bbr1.Washington1.level3.net (64.159.1.86) 24.187 ms 24.548 ms 26.540 ms
8 so-6-0-0.edge1.Washington1.Level3.net (209.244.11.10) 25.250 ms 25.898 ms 24.751 ms
9 sl-st20-ash.sprintlink.net (209.244.219.170) 24.297 ms 24.855 ms 24.158 ms
10 sl-bb22-rly-15-1.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.4) 26.806 ms 37.916 ms 26.895 ms
11 sl-bb21-msq-1-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.19.97) 26.818 ms 26.849 ms 26.662 ms
12 sl-bb20-cop-14-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.19.30) 108.351 ms 167.961 ms 273.425 ms
13 sl-bb21-cop-15-0.sprintlink.net (80.77.64.34) 108.952 ms 107.198 ms 106.765 ms
14 sl-bb21-sto-14-0.sprintlink.net (213.206.129.34) 114.336 ms 114.616 ms 114.536 ms
15 sl-gw10-sto-15-0.sprintlink.net (80.77.96.42) 114.912 ms 114.588 ms 114.905 ms
16 sle-golde6-1-0.sprintlink.net (80.77.97.86) 137.265 ms 137.510 ms 137.267 ms
17 cisco13.Moscow.gldn.net (194.186.157.210) 138.923 ms 139.032 ms 139.507 ms
18 cisco12.Moscow.gldn.net (194.186.157.214) 139.815 ms 139.820 ms 141.456 ms
19 213.33.135.202 (213.33.135.202) 139.133 ms 139.307 ms 139.157 ms
20 SCORPION-MG-2.Garnet.ru (195.209.63.19) 138.719 ms 139.413 ms 139.730 ms
21 195.209.36.42 (195.209.36.42) 138.857 ms 138.710 ms 138.228 ms
22 195.209.36.215 (195.209.36.215) 139.038 ms 140.206 ms 139.298 ms

Doesnt look like it to me

[detoxed]

well if the government says its ok....

[Why]

Originally posted by stocktrader23


I've said this on here many times. Regardless of how wrong these sites are or what purpose they serve they do appear to be within the law. Candid photos of anyone nude aren't considered pornography. Bitch, complain, whatever but it isn't going to change. Like it was pointed out, where would you draw the line. Are all pictures of my child nude cp? Nope. Same difference here.

well said....

i agree, so if anyone that takes pictures of thier babies naked.... is that CP? Hell NO. its just a proud parent. whether its tasteful or usful is not to be decided by anyone but the american courts, its fucked up yea, but they are within thier legal rights, dont forget that there a LOT of people around that think ALL porn is bad, and there are even some people that like porn a lot but think. DP.s and gangbangs should be illegal.

dont be the pot calling the pan black here guys, get over it. you fuckers bitch when the GOV rolls out plans to govern in the internet in one way or another, then you cry to them to make them legislate it? look at what your saying you hypocrits.

[Why]

with that said, i am against that kind of site as well. but i dont think crying to the government is going to help us in anyway. go make some friends on IRC, and it can be brough down quite swiftly

or better yet, if you dont like it dont look!

furthermore, dont go to sites that allow the listing of sites like this.

[stizzous]

Originally posted by farbie
This is a common argument against this type of content. It is unethical, immoral, exploits females, dangerous to children, and damaging to the very fabric of our society.

The Religious Right, The Moral Majority, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and company use the exact same argument against all porn/erotic materials.

Congratulations to those who have just stated that their beliefs should supercede the law. You're in very good company, with the same people that want to put us all out of business.

Think people, no matter how distasteful this type of site may be to you and me, it is legal and therefore deserving of the same protections of law under which we operate. Tear down those protections to narrow the material protected, and you'll find others who will narrow it even more until we're all out of business.

And if you're attempting to judge this site based on what the visitors to the site will think about while there, congrats again as you've just moved into the arena of regulating thoughts.

Open your fucking eyes. We of all people should support the rights of others to display materials that are offensive as long as it is legal. You don't have to support what they do, but their right to do it.

If we don't, then who will when the exact same argument is turned against us?

farbie

Flame away...

well said

[pornJester]

that's some wack shit.

[Webby]

Art my ass!!

And fuck the FBI...