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)
-   -   little lupe = child porn. (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=722195)

blackhatter 04-07-2007 11:32 PM

little lupe = child porn.
 
Dont contact me to run a campaign on that shit idiots.

xclusive 04-07-2007 11:35 PM

well been nice knowing ya, I predict a banning soon.

xclusive 04-07-2007 11:36 PM

oh and I won't push it either but it's not CP

Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE 04-07-2007 11:36 PM

I am talking bets on how long it will take before the hammer strikes.... :1orglaugh

SomeCreep 04-07-2007 11:37 PM

http://www.motleycrow.com/ImageHost/ban_him.jpg

starpimps 04-07-2007 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SomeCreep (Post 12219811)

lol dude that pic is golden....i say by 4am tomorrow he will be banned

xclusive 04-07-2007 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Clark (Post 12219807)
I am talking bets on how long it will take before the hammer strikes.... :1orglaugh

It's easter so he might last up to an hour or so.

Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE 04-07-2007 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xclusive (Post 12219820)
It's easter so he might last up to an hour or so.

I am thinking 3 hrs, 23 min. and 52 sec. :warning

xclusive 04-07-2007 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Clark (Post 12219831)
I am thinking 11 hrs, 23 min. and 52 sec. :warning

If this was the price is right you would be fucked, That's way over.

blackhatter 04-07-2007 11:41 PM

yea ban me please.

BusterBunny 04-07-2007 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Clark (Post 12219831)
I am thinking 3 hrs, 23 min. and 52 sec. :warning

td didnt post on christmas so the bannings didnt happen til the day after so it might actually last a full day :2 cents:

blackhatter 04-07-2007 11:42 PM

by the way its littlelupe.com

Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE 04-07-2007 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BusterBunny (Post 12219841)
td didnt post on christmas so the bannings didnt happen til the day after so it might actually last a full day :2 cents:

You could be right :Oh crap

blackhatter 04-07-2007 11:44 PM

why would I get banned, someone hit me up hiring me to promote that site, and I have that shit in my icq logs now.

Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE 04-07-2007 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackhatter (Post 12219844)
by the way its littlelupe.com

We all know the url and most of us do not agree with the look and feel of the site, but either way she is of age :error

Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE 04-07-2007 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackhatter (Post 12219859)
why would I get banned, someone hit me up hiring me to promote that site, and I have that shit in my icq logs now.

Because you called out something as something it is not :helpme

DamageX 04-07-2007 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Clark (Post 12219862)
We all know the url and most of us do not agree with the look and feel of the site, but either way she is of age :error

We all do know who the site caters to though. :)

xclusive 04-07-2007 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackhatter (Post 12219859)
why would I get banned, someone hit me up hiring me to promote that site, and I have that shit in my icq logs now.

Because she's not under 18 I can assure you that and that will get you banned for calling it CP, That's a very serious accusation. I'm not a fan of programs doing the whole ponytail thing and girls looking really young. But it's legal.:2 cents:

Jon Clark - BANNED FOR LIFE 04-07-2007 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamageX (Post 12219883)
We all do know who the site caters to though. :)

Yup we do and that is why most of us stay away from it... :2 cents:

blackhatter 04-07-2007 11:50 PM

the devil will find you.

After Shock Media 04-07-2007 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackhatter (Post 12219859)
why would I get banned, someone hit me up hiring me to promote that site, and I have that shit in my icq logs now.

Umm maybe cause you said it was CP without any proof. Just like calling someone a pedo without proof.

baddog 04-07-2007 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackhatter (Post 12219859)
why would I get banned, someone hit me up hiring me to promote that site, and I have that shit in my icq logs now.

because she is over 18, hence you have made unfounded allegations of CP = banning

Splum 04-08-2007 12:03 AM

Yeah just like the last guy who called someone a pedo on here got banned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB (Post 12197591)
Yes you are stupid. You keep trying to justify your pedophilia.

:error :error :error :error

blackhatter 04-08-2007 12:04 AM

Lmfao At You Clowns!

blackhatter 04-08-2007 12:07 AM

BAN HIM! BAN HIM! hahaha but I was almost at 300 posts!

goldmine 04-08-2007 12:17 AM

For the record: Site is 2257 compliant... girl is 18 bla bla

Off the record: I really "looks like" girl is under 18...



















***DISCLAIMER: Me not accusing anyone in anyhow engaging in CP.. ;)

bdld 04-08-2007 01:07 AM

1. i'm sure she's over age, they wouldn't dare do anything that dumb.
2. i wouldnt promote it just because she looks way too young

VicD 04-08-2007 02:36 AM

i checked a gallery of her and she sure looks very young but on the other hand it looks all legal to me...

Kimo 04-08-2007 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdld (Post 12220442)
1. i'm sure she's over age, they wouldn't dare do anything that dumb.
2. i wouldnt promote it just because she looks way too young



quoted for truth

Scootermuze 04-08-2007 06:24 AM

§ 2256. Definitions for chapter

(8) (B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; ....

(11) the term ?indistinguishable? used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
-----------------------------

This being the case, it could be considered cp if the powers that be decided to make it such.. I'd say a rather large gray area in this particular situation..

Ace_luffy 04-08-2007 06:33 AM

:) :) :)

Barefootsies 04-08-2007 07:52 AM


Barefootsies 04-08-2007 07:53 AM


Barefootsies 04-08-2007 07:54 AM


Barefootsies 04-08-2007 07:55 AM


webmasterchecks 04-08-2007 08:32 AM

no reason to ban him

that group has a history of finding girls that look young as fuck. i can imagine the celebration that would go on in those offices if they found a 10 year old look alike

now, im sure they have their ducks in a row with this girl, but dont tell me she clearly looks over 18. she doesnt't, and she is not intended to

fuzebox 04-08-2007 09:36 AM

She looks like a skinny 18 year old latina to me, not much different than a lot of them here... Maybe a little young, but not enough to warrant this thread.

Are you guys really influenced that much by the pink hair bows and shit?

tony286 04-08-2007 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THEMASKEDRIDER (Post 12221413)
no reason to ban him

that group has a history of finding girls that look young as fuck. i can imagine the celebration that would go on in those offices if they found a 10 year old look alike

now, im sure they have their ducks in a row with this girl, but dont tell me she clearly looks over 18. she doesnt't, and she is not intended to

their 2257 statement is not in compliance so not a good start lol

Paolo 04-08-2007 09:47 AM

She is 20 years old and a porn star in spain
She has done 2 features and her boyfriend shot all of the video.
She made the deal and made lots of cash for herself.

Come on now. That is a serious charge and you should be banned.

s9ann0 04-08-2007 09:54 AM

hey she may look 13 but its ok because the release says shes over 18

DaddyHalbucks 04-08-2007 09:57 AM

Since the title of the thread is factually inaccurate and potentially defamatory, AKA totally false, and violates GFY rules, I would say a ban is justified.

RawAlex 04-08-2007 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scootermuze (Post 12221180)
§ 2256. Definitions for chapter

(8) (B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; ....

(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
-----------------------------

This being the case, it could be considered cp if the powers that be decided to make it such.. I'd say a rather large gray area in this particular situation..


Good try, but don't quit your day job to be a lawyer - you quoted the stuff without context:

Quote:

(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

The entirety of section 8B and C is to cover machine generated / photochop style porn.

Good try thought, but you need to work on those critical reading skills.

digifan 04-08-2007 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies (Post 12221349)

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Evil Chris 04-08-2007 10:23 AM

Slanderous allegations such as these should most definitely bring a ban to the person who started this thread. Unfortunately, the person has a low post count which to me is indicative of someone using a 2nd GFY account.

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=722195

I'm asking Lensman to take a close look at the IPs this person is using and has used in the past, and to kindly ban all nicknames associated with it.

Thank you very much.

Screaming 04-08-2007 10:29 AM

oo its a teenrevenue site.

Not shocking in the least.

Eric 04-08-2007 10:34 AM

Accusations of CP with out proof is against GFY rules. You are Banned

RawAlex 04-08-2007 10:47 AM

So fucking banned.

JFK 04-08-2007 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 12219972)
because she is over 18, hence you have made unfounded allegations of CP = banning

YUP..... have a nice life in the hole:(

Kram 04-08-2007 11:04 AM

Its obvious who they are catering for ...

CaptainHowdy 04-08-2007 11:11 AM

Hasta la vista, blackhatter


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:44 AM.

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