Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesouth
It just irritates me to no end to see how many people are willing to completely lay down the rights that Americans have fought and died to protect all in the name of "security"
you dont deserve to be secure and you dont deserve to have the rights either...the real shame is that you are willing to take people like me down with you
|
you seem to have mistaken GFY for your own blog.... this is a message board thread, conversations occur here... you have been going off on various 2257 tangents that aren't related to the point of the thread.
i asked a direct question: How is a website owner going to do the equivalent that the store owner did for the Traci Lords situation when images/videos are found to be underaged?
your answer was:
"Thae same way they did it in the Traci Lords example, you say word got out...it gets out here too. nI expect Paul Markham or whomever would notify his customers."
that's not an answer, that's the same as saying the webmasters will magically take care of it .... because the reality is most webmasters wouldn't know where to begin to look. If Paul markham said xxx model from photosets yyy need to be taken down due to underage, then how does the webmaster who has those images and videos on his website(s) deal with things next?
The point of this thread was to be aware of the very real potential situation that an underage model could be uncovered and webmasters need to pull down images and videos.
If a webmaster did do the inventory documentation, they would actually be accomplishing part of 2257 compliance from the original 2257 statue and its intent.
Fight the rants!