Why I love 2257 - GoFuckYourself.com

Paul Markham · 08-08-2006, 10:36 PM

Because kids like this are around, have access to the Net and a digital camera.

http://mycrimespace.thetrenchcoat.co...izabeth+muller

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?i...sort=1&start=1

2257 is also for our protection.

Deej · 08-08-2006, 10:37 PM

stupid bastards

Jack_Daniels · 08-09-2006, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Because kids like this are around, have access to the Net and a digital camera.

http://mycrimespace.thetrenchcoat.co...izabeth+muller

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?i...sort=1&start=1

2257 is also for our protection.

You know, a case could be made that perhaps the old 2257 was in fact well intentioned........ but not the new 2257.

Come on man get real.

The Ghost · 08-09-2006, 02:50 AM

You do understand that 2257 will never slow down anyone who wants to produce illegal content, right Paul?

The Ghost · 08-09-2006, 03:07 AM

Also, there is not one mention how 2257 aided in this 'find'. The only info was some police officer was 'monitoring' myspace, so whatever that means.

If he's being paid to go on myspace, what a fucking waste of taxpayer (my) dollars that is.

I call bullshit on the entire story

Zuss · 08-09-2006, 03:31 AM

16 y olds are not childs. So there has been no child porn case.Period.

frank7799 · 08-09-2006, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Ghost

Also, there is not one mention how 2257 aided in this 'find'. The only info was some police officer was 'monitoring' myspace, so whatever that means.

If he's being paid to go on myspace, what a fucking waste of taxpayer (my) dollars that is.

I call bullshit on the entire story

And it´s not cp at all. Two teenagers experiencing their sexuality - not more. So it sounds like a big joke for me. They should catch those who abuse children, but it seems that isn´t the real reason for surfing myspace for porn...

BVF · 08-09-2006, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Because kids like this are around, have access to the Net and a digital camera.

http://mycrimespace.thetrenchcoat.co...izabeth+muller

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?i...sort=1&start=1

2257 is also for our protection.

What a STUPID example....Some teenage bitches play around with a camera and you spin the story to relate to people in this biz who "have access to the net and a digital camera" bullshit.

What is your problem with amateurs shooting content? What does it matter to YOU if other people who haven't been trained in traditional photography uses a digital camera? How can any of this affect YOUR pocket? Seriously........

MrPinks · 08-09-2006, 11:51 AM

Why isn't MySpace being charged as a "secondary producer" ?

CheneyRumsfeld · 08-09-2006, 12:10 PM

the nerve of them bastards!
eveybody knows only Paul knows how to use a camera!

move on old man.
the young blood is coming!

CheneyRumsfeld · 08-09-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPinks

Why isn't MySpace being charged as a "secondary producer" ?

because the person who posted it is the "secondary producer"

Barefootsies · 08-09-2006, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Ghost

You do understand that 2257 will never slow down anyone who wants to produce illegal content, right Paul?

Correct. Much the same as new tougher laws on the books, or longer jail terms will not deter the hardened criminals. But they have to try.

MrPinks · 08-09-2006, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheneyRumsfeld

because the person who posted it is the "secondary producer"

Wouldn't they be the Primary?

CHMOD · 08-09-2006, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuss

16 y olds are not childs. So there has been no child porn case.Period.

Amen to this.
American and canadian laws were made by retarded people.

Mr. Romance · 08-09-2006, 12:13 PM

2257 is needed...in the right way, but it has to protect the models privacy

Mr. Romance

Manga1 · 08-09-2006, 12:17 PM

"The 16-year-old has been charged with child pornography and curfew violation"

Ok, that's just retarded. They charged the 16 year old with child pornography for that? So now that kid is going to be a sex offender? WTF is wrong with these people??

Matt 26z · 08-09-2006, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manga1

So now that kid is going to be a sex offender? WTF is wrong with these people??

They way they abuse the sex offender database these days, it wouldn't surprise me. If the crime involved anything sexual, you become a registered sex offender.

The concept was much better in the early days when it was nothing but confirmed molesters and violent rapists.

american pervert · 08-09-2006, 01:06 PM

all these regs help thin out the heard

andrej_NDC · 08-09-2006, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Ghost

You do understand that 2257 will never slow down anyone who wants to produce illegal content, right Paul?

I'm afraid he doesn't understand that.

andrej_NDC · 08-09-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Romance

2257 is needed...in the right way

in the old way...when people could link to primary producers. They should have all the documents anyway. But every adult webmaster beeing a custodian of records is stupid.

CheneyRumsfeld · 08-09-2006, 01:43 PM

2257 = photoshop
what a pathic joke
you could have a 2257 for a dog for Christ sakes.

andrej_NDC · 08-09-2006, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheneyRumsfeld

2257 = photoshop
what a pathic joke
you could have a 2257 for a dog for Christ sakes.

Please read the law again.

L-Pink · 08-09-2006, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheneyRumsfeld

2257 = photoshop
what a pathic joke
you could have a 2257 for a dog for Christ sakes.

???????????

GigoloMason · 08-09-2006, 02:19 PM

Wow paul just once I wish you'd be able to wrap your head around a concept before making a stupid post like this rather than after.

one eight · 08-09-2006, 02:33 PM

Wouch- the ole GFY thread reversal.

Paul Markham · 08-09-2006, 11:16 PM

For such bright people you really are a little dim.

I was not saying 2257 would stop it being produced.

I AM SAYING 2257 LESSENS THE CHANCE OF WEBMASTERS GOING TO PRISON FOR PUBLISHING IT.

If you go by the old rules of secondary producers not requiring documents there is nothing to stop these kids, remember one was under a curfew order so no angel, producing porn and selling it to webmasters.

By making it law that secondary producers have the documents you are less likely to make that mistake.

The one thing that kept a lot of people out of prison for publishing, selling and acting with Traci Lords was that they had her FORGED documents. The old 2257 would of meant webmasters do not require them.

2257 is not about protecting 16-18 from me, it's about protecting me from them. It stops me buying content from people I do not know, in another country and I have no reason to trust.

Now do you get it?

The Ghost · 08-09-2006, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

For such bright people you really are a little dim.

I was not saying 2257 would stop it being produced.

I AM SAYING 2257 LESSENS THE CHANCE OF WEBMASTERS GOING TO PRISON FOR PUBLISHING IT.

If you go by the old rules of secondary producers not requiring documents there is nothing to stop these kids, remember one was under a curfew order so no angel, producing porn and selling it to webmasters.

By making it law that secondary producers have the documents you are less likely to make that mistake.

The one thing that kept a lot of people out of prison for publishing, selling and acting with Traci Lords was that they had her FORGED documents. The old 2257 would of meant webmasters do not require them.

2257 is not about protecting 16-18 from me, it's about protecting me from them. It stops me buying content from people I do not know, in another country and I have no reason to trust.

Now do you get it?

In a backwards, round about way I see the point you are trying to make Paul, but you are still off track. You have to consider there are parts of the world where the content they produced is COMPLETELY legal if they were over the age of 16. Not the United States mind you, though the new international proposal drafted clearly states that countries can set the minimum age to anything over 16 years of age.

The reason the producers of the Traci Lords products had a pass was her identification was so good the U.S. GOVERMENT accepted it. After that was known there was no case.

A quick tutorial in photoshop would make those underage performers documents appear to be legal, rendering 2257 useless to secondary producers. Secondary producers have never seen the ACTUAL documents. Do you mail the actual IDs of your performers to each client for inspection? No.

Don't make the mistake of taking a single isolated instance and turning it into the poster child for change, especially for your own benefit. Look at the bigger picture. This is why things are a fucked up as they are now

08-08-2006, 10:36 PM	#1
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Why I love 2257 Because kids like this are around, have access to the Net and a digital camera. http://mycrimespace.thetrenchcoat.co...izabeth+muller http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?i...sort=1&start=1 2257 is also for our protection. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

08-08-2006, 10:37 PM	#2
Deej I make pixels work Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: I live here... Posts: 24,386	stupid bastards __________________ Deej's Designs n' What Not Hit me up for Design, CSS & Photo Retouching Icq#30096880

08-09-2006, 02:50 AM	#4
The Ghost IslandDollars.com Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Icq: 176176 Posts: 12,188	You do understand that 2257 will never slow down anyone who wants to produce illegal content, right Paul? __________________ ISLAND DOLLARS 1000's of Exclusive TS scenes / Constant Updates Best TS Network your surfers will ever join

08-09-2006, 03:07 AM	#5
The Ghost IslandDollars.com Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Icq: 176176 Posts: 12,188	Also, there is not one mention how 2257 aided in this 'find'. The only info was some police officer was 'monitoring' myspace, so whatever that means. If he's being paid to go on myspace, what a fucking waste of taxpayer (my) dollars that is. I call bullshit on the entire story __________________ ISLAND DOLLARS 1000's of Exclusive TS scenes / Constant Updates Best TS Network your surfers will ever join

08-09-2006, 03:31 AM	#6
Zuss Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,187	16 y olds are not childs. So there has been no child porn case.Period. __________________ I like cookies.

08-09-2006, 11:51 AM	#9
MrPinks Registered User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: FL Posts: 1,767	Why isn't MySpace being charged as a "secondary producer" ?

08-09-2006, 12:10 PM	#10
CheneyRumsfeld Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,341	the nerve of them bastards! eveybody knows only Paul knows how to use a camera! move on old man. the young blood is coming!

08-09-2006, 12:13 PM	#15
Mr. Romance The Face of Romance and the Symbol of Freedom Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The America's Posts: 7,821	2257 is needed...in the right way, but it has to protect the models privacy Mr. Romance __________________ Free Leads Program now paying up to $6 Gerard-Director of Global Sales Sign up Here: CamStarCash Check out: FreeCamStars ICQ: 330 662 299 gerard at freecamstars . com

08-09-2006, 12:17 PM	#16
Manga1 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Malakiaville Posts: 952	"The 16-year-old has been charged with child pornography and curfew violation" Ok, that's just retarded. They charged the 16 year old with child pornography for that? So now that kid is going to be a sex offender? WTF is wrong with these people??

08-09-2006, 01:06 PM	#18
american pervert Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 6,830	all these regs help thin out the heard __________________ I can resist everything except temptation

08-09-2006, 01:43 PM	#21
CheneyRumsfeld Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,341	2257 = photoshop what a pathic joke you could have a 2257 for a dog for Christ sakes.

08-09-2006, 02:19 PM	#24
GigoloMason Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 742	Wow paul just once I wish you'd be able to wrap your head around a concept before making a stupid post like this rather than after. __________________

08-09-2006, 02:33 PM	#25
one eight Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Costa Rica & San Francisco Posts: 1,941	Wouch- the ole GFY thread reversal. __________________ -more than a number

08-09-2006, 11:16 PM	#26
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	For such bright people you really are a little dim. I was not saying 2257 would stop it being produced. I AM SAYING 2257 LESSENS THE CHANCE OF WEBMASTERS GOING TO PRISON FOR PUBLISHING IT. If you go by the old rules of secondary producers not requiring documents there is nothing to stop these kids, remember one was under a curfew order so no angel, producing porn and selling it to webmasters. By making it law that secondary producers have the documents you are less likely to make that mistake. The one thing that kept a lot of people out of prison for publishing, selling and acting with Traci Lords was that they had her FORGED documents. The old 2257 would of meant webmasters do not require them. 2257 is not about protecting 16-18 from me, it's about protecting me from them. It stops me buying content from people I do not know, in another country and I have no reason to trust. Now do you get it? __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70