Looks like LEGAL teen porn is now illegal
 

According to this new articale on Yahoo even if a 18 year old or older model looks young you will get slammed. But hey guess what Hollywood is still safe :mad:. I read the entire law at the Supreme Courts site and looks like we could be in a world of shit by even usng the term teen porn to promote sites. This law is even more vague than 2257. Bullshit like this makes me want to pack up and finally move to Canada.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080519/...tus_child_porn

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-694.pdf

Awesome!

Go america!

And of course, most people just don't seem to give a shit. :(

the keywords here are "illegal images".

there is no way they can uphold that promoting a teen image of someone 18-19, are in fact teens. so suck it u.s.a. they can pass all the laws they want, but if you are not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about.

TEEN does in fact mean 18 and 19 eightTEEN, and nineTEEN respectively. They can't change the meaning of a word.

Yes, but after reading the law and Souter's and Ginsbergs statement as to why they oppose the law, is quite disturbing.

Just another cluster fuck to come from this administration.

someone may look 20 to one person and 24 to another, there is no way this will hold up.

I'm pretty sure that's nothing new, you can't imply CP. A 30 year old model in pigtails sitting in a kindergarten classroom playing with alphabet blocks is still illegal, regardless of her age.

Grey area I guess, but really who would want to go there anyways.

They are unlikely to have enough handcuffs to prosecute everyone using the phrase Teen Porn. :2 cents:

http://cdn.galleries.littlelupe.com/combo/04/87.jpg

Hummm...
I think I warned these guys years ago about this exact thing.
I even warned them in person. They laughed at me and then fired me when I had expressed some conscience about it all.

Now...
Who is laughing?

What does the Supreme Court desicsion have anything to do with the current administration. None of the Judges in the article were appointed by Bush and two in the whole court were appointed by Bush. And unless Bush is rigging the Court. Which I doubt.
Is this a bad decision? Very much yes. But we cant point the finger at Bush everytime.
Bush and his lackies are not the only ones looking to take us down or get a peice of the action. We should keep a objective view and watchful eye on all the attacks and legislation that harms our industry and harms our public image.

I do not think it is a bad decision at all, I think making Legal girls look like kids putting braces on them and throwing a sucker in thier mouth is exactly a good idea for Adult Content for many reasons.

it was my understanding the law has said that overage girls pretending to be underage is illegal... shrug...

There are consequences to voting republican folks.

To the guy can?t figure out what this has to do with Bush, Bush?s Supreme Court Appointees voted in favor of this decision. The Supreme Court because of Bush?s appointments is tilted so far to the right that their collective political views make Rush Limbagh and Sean Hannity look like flaming liberals.

fuck you are dumb ....

Are you stupid? 2 of the judges on the SC are Bush appointees. They get a vote whether or not they are in the article. They were 2 of the 7 that supported this law.

This law has to do with PANDERING. Which means if I post here that I have some CP and are willing to give/sell it to you. I can be busted even if I don't actually have any CP at all. It's no different than I agree to sell cocaine to someone and I sell than baking soda. I can still get busted for selling coke. Even if it was my intention all along to sell someone baking soda.

Gee I wonder if the makers of Not Another Teen Movie will get busted for all the sexual situations with "minors" in that movie? Doubt it. Hmmmm.

Difference between Little Lupe and a normal sized girl:

http://www.holyporn.net/young_girl_with_milf.jpg

and next week it will be MILFs who look to old making them obscene. Its a never ending crusade.

Explaine.
You are not that smart are you? Tell us why this is not a good thing other than the whole "Freedom Of Expression" speech. There is an unsaid border in media, and the inference of subject matter in media relating to sexually illegal activity I seriously doubt this subject matter deserve's the protections of the First Amendment and appearently the Supreme Court thinks so to.

I guess the US Supreme court are A BUNCH of dumb guys also huh? LOL!

I am sure all the teen Revenue stuff is offshore anyways so they might be safe for now, however it seem's this SC finding also covers the promotion of such things.

So watch out US webmasters...

That is my impression too. Another vague law that can be used so many diferent ways against legal porn. :Oh crap

Exactly! :thumbsup

just read your posts ( and I will not point that your engrish .... is lousy ) ... should be clear .

So now, a 25 years old made to look younger would be OK to you to prosecute ... How about a 29, or a 35 years old ... That applies to twinks also ... So it is not the age of the participant that counts to you, but the looks.

So you must be OK with a 15 years old girl that looks like a milf doing porn ...

Nice going moron .. on the other hand, you are not even in the business, so go enroll in the army to do your duty.

WTF you hotlinking cock sucker:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

bah who cares hotlink all you want

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh Now that wold be fucked up ! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

hmmm well Larry Flynt /Hustler will most certainly oppose it. This would make 'Barely Legal' illegal, right?

Such laws in the longrun are counter-productive...

The vast majority of people who look at such images (real or simulated) do so as fantasy only with no intention of acting them out.

By taking away access to such images, especially the simulated ones that involved no underaged persons, that will force some of them to instead seek alternatives, such as molesting real children...

And worse, due to the harsh criminal penalties (often more severe than 1st degree murder), molesters increasingly will kill their victims afterwards to avoid being caught...

And even if later caught, there's a slight chance depending on the time elapsed and remaining physical evidence, they may be able to negotiate a murder only plea and possibly end up doing less prison time than if convicted of molestation alone, and as an added bonus not have to register as a sex offender.

To digress a bit...

Bizarre how there are no "burgler" lists, no "murderer" lists, and yet there are "sex offender" lists.

Speaking of bizarre ... a past convicted murderer can often get federal financial aid for college, but often a convicted pot smoker can't, but that's another debate for another thread.

Ron

Hey what do you expect from people that still think Bush is better than a black man. Guess all the milf paysite owners will be rich when they get rid of all this teen porn.

Really? Wasn't this already struck down via a Max Hardcore court case a while back?

I've seen many young looking models in their early 20's (like Little Lupe) - so now if those LEGAL aged models wear pigtails it's illegal?

If this is true it will be a slippery slope indeed.

I thought 2257 was in place to make sure all models are 18 or older. If you film a 21 year old model that looks very young are you now breaking the law?!

Underage porn is clearly wrong, and that's why it's illegal, but if a model is 18 or older it is no longer underage porn - regardless of how the girl is dressed, or if she is chewing bubble gum, skipping rope, or whatever.

Should be interesting to see where this goes....

wouldn't they be infringing on the rights of the young looking 18 year old model to work in the industry?

I watched a program on TV over here in the UK around a year ago about convicted sex offenders, and I was kinda shocked at what some of them were saying about what caused them to do this shit. They were blaming it on the internet or said they got thier ideas and contacts from the internet.

Can you message me about your site please? Thanks

None of these laws are in place to protect the children. Everybody that was legit has always checked ID and had models sign releases.
This is all about shutting down porn. Plain and simple. That's all. Just like 2257 is nothing more than a way for the govt. to nail anybody they want to by getting them on a book-keeping infraction.
Pedo's always shot underage....and they always will. Laws don't stop them. CATCHING them stops them.
The rest of this nonsense is all about government trying to take us over.

They might oppose it, but what are the chances it will be brought BACK in front of the supreme court any time soon?

Sounds great. God I love our government!

Oh come on, they're nodding and agreeing so they can be released sometime in their lives.

And holy state the obvious.. Where else you gonna go for your CP?

quoted for truth...

the government doesn't want to shut down porn.

what does this court decision have anything to do with legal websites? the guy actually possessed cp and tried to sell/distribute it.

are you really gonna sit there an say this cp worthless pos shouldn't get the extra time because that bolded is protected by freedom of speech?

consider for a minute if they ruled the opposite way the consequence of such a ruling.

What he said...

Well said and thats why its all fucking gray.

I was not talking soley about cp these guys had been convicted of all sorts of sex crimes and most of them were blaming the internet for giving them the idea...that is what shocked me, that some people will see shit on the net then go and carry it out in real life

wake up - that is a decision by the fucking Supreme Court of the United States of America and yes it does make the production and marketing of teen porn whether the models are of legal age or not potentially illegal.

i would not want to be Larry Flynt, Paolo from Teen Revenue, Lightspeed or myself and a thousand others for that matter. It is a very SCARY decision - whether the government uses it ever to charge anybody who uses legal age models - who knows - but the possibility and this law make it very worrisome

by the way - in Canada laws with the same intent are already on the books - nobody seems to know it but me and a few others - content with legal age models that suggests they are underage is illegal in Canada.

awesome!

Shhhh! Saying that kind of thing will kill the rebel in everyone that wishes to be hard edged and against the system!

The way I understand this is that the content itself is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's an 80yo man or a 18yo girl dressed up in a school outfit with stuffed animals all around.

This decision in my view targets people who have content - any content, or even no content at all - that falsely promote it as underage materials.

And to the idiots in this thread saying it won't stand up, who is going to strike down a ruling by the US Supreme Court?

long live to the truth and love.

Bump, in case some people missed this one.

there are still intelligent people left on GFY; OMFG!