Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorB
Actually it IS a 2257 case and NOT a CP case. In order to prove it's CP don't have to prove the "child" in question is actually a child? In America proof of guilt not proof of innocence. The burden is on the GOVERNMENT to prove it's case. Now obviously if the girl looks very young or looks like small child then that makes it easier for the prosecution. But you have a girl that COULD be 16 or she COULD be 19, well I'm not sure how you get 12 people to put a guy away and then be listed a sex pred because he forgot to cross his T's and dot his I's.
|
The letter says "we are seeking to determine that they were over the age of eighteen years at the time the visual images were created."
So I don't see that as a 2257 issue.
It's all very confusing, maybe this guy was the original buyer, but not in our list under his real name. Then maybe he sold the site to the present domain owner.
The Whois says it was recently updated.
Does the site contain our content. Who owns the content in the pictures. Why are we being chased and not the site owner. Has the site been sold with non exclusive content. If so why was the content sold without our knowledge. Does the new owner, if it is a new owner, have the documents?
Strange and why 2257 is important. To stop messes like this from turning mole hills into shit mountains.