you either have a vivid imagination or you don't no the meaning of vulgar.

12clicks - you are no authority on credibility or integrity. As a matter of fact I cant think of anything you say that is worth the time it takes to read them.

No matter how you word it, or what you say, your opinion is basically fucking worthless because an opinion can only be valid when you have the inteillegence to have reached that decision with some kind of thought process, which you have proven to have the minimal waves required to exist.

Please since you rather hide behind laws like the rest, you my friend are no worst than them. I would like to think that some of us can make a difference in keeping our business clean. If you have nothing positive to say, please dont reply, I am into furthering my career and my profession as a Adult Webmaster, these laws and these arrests effect us all in one way or another. Sure hide behind you being offshore, or its legal fuck it stance, but one day something will creep up on you.

People like Nina Hartley, whom I have met and spoken to were early pushers in keeping this business respected by the very outsiders that ONLY see the TRUETEENBABES.com news flash. These people need to KNOW that some of us (not speaking for you 12clicks) are good honest webmasters who instead of saying, "non nude is legal lets do it" we stand back and take a stance against that. That is what MY COUNTRY is based on. That is what I base my reactions on.

I dont know you personally or what you have done. But I have worked in the Adult Industry for over 5 years. Not on the internet but the Adult Indusry as in the movie makers and the real content providers.

I have had FBI "narcs" in chat rooms 3 years ago because of "visible insertion" in case you arent familiar with this, in California we have an "Obscenity Law" which basically says everything we film here is illegal. Anal sex flicks made 2 blocks from my home are considered illegal and indescent, and get you jail time.

I worked with a company who set up hardcore live feeds for Hustler because Flynt was the only one who would put his name on the line in saying, fuck the judge we got hardcore feeds from Hollywood" and we did this for years. Unfortunately as all laws change so do people will to fight.

We ran live web feeds for years to 1000s of paysite member sections, any big time players know what Im talking about. Talking old school here, 97-99. And its basically illegal for a girl to put a dildo in her pussy on cam in California, and msot states yet its done by 1000s of people making money. Lets not forget all gay/homosexual movies are illegal in thei Country under the same Obscenity Law,... because sodomy is illegal in most states.

So just because you dont give a fuck or care about the future of this industry do NOT sit back and think "switching my processor" is the answer, it is NOT the answer. If CC Bill and Ibill were not "known as being the non nude processors" then they would not have been processing for them in the first place.

Since I started this thread I have seen replies like "theyve always done this,".... and "CC Bill and I bill is known for processing non nude sites" -

well I didnt know this, and if it was not for threads like this, then maybe someone else down the line can make the decision to use certain processors based on this info.

To shut up and change my processor is not the answer, its only fueling the problem, but I am sure you wont understand this and simply cop a one line reply, proving your intelligence yet again.

Just stop, this is a discussion for obviously much more thinking than most conjure. Because it involves a question of charchter and personal choice.

Its my thread, deal with it.

What the fuck is your point? Your posting in this thread is completely fucking useless.

Don't tell me what I "should" have done. You are just as hypocritical as the points you are trying to make. And if you would look at the number of replies to this thread, you might realize you just put your fucking foot in your mouth...it seems like LOTS of people besides the "fletch xxx household" are concerned about this issue. Sure, make your points about the law. But yet again I will ask this question. And I will address it to you since you know "the law."

to 12clicks:
If this teen fashion model niche is LEGAL.... then WHY did that guy get arrested???? You say you abide by the laws and accept them. Can you tell me WHY that guy was arrested if what he was doing is legal? Huh?

I'm not looking to twist words around. Just poking around to see if you support the idea of people pushing the line RIGHT up to the legal limit of child porn?

I'm not the one to decide ANYTHING for anyone else, but I am asking for clarity (mostly cause I'm nosy) what YOUR take is on pushing the line on Child porn right up to the legal limit since one or two (crazy) people will listen to you on here.

dude, if I understand your post, you're a criminal. you want to talk about credibility? hahaha. you're a joke.
I guess it makes you feel good to have found something that offends you so you can *pretend* to be self rightous.

If that's your game, sorry I tripped over your game board.

you keep right on breaking your local laws because, hey, you know better. hahahahaha joker.

On a similar note....

I just got a job coaching girls highschool volleyball.

honey, I don't know what he did but it obviously was more than the other 10,000 NN sites on the net or there would have been a sweep and not a single arrest only.

get it?

got any pics? :1orglaugh

or he was in a different goegraphical loaction than the others....

No we ran an honest game, and thats why I am still in business and so is the company I worked for. We VOLUNTEERED for the narcs to be planted in our chat rooms to show we dont do anything wrong.

damn man, I even predicted you would do this.

LOL

I think we'd all predict it after your comments:
quick, start your spin.

I am no criminal, no more than Larry Flynt is since I worked for him, are you calling Larry Flynta Cp pusher or criminal?

if he directed you to break the law and you did, then yes he'd be a criminal.

I like your style, the kind of guy who thinks the law doesn't apply to them but then non-laws should apply to whoever you choose. hahaha

Fact is, its because of big companies like I worked for who run honest sites who keep the integrity of this boat afloat. If we had been doing illegal shit back then and running a huge studio with well over 500 performers, there would be no way the internet porn thing would be what it is today.

Its because of people like me and my associates that help keep this game clean, instead of vocally supporting the things you so claim to hide behind 12clicks.

Please just drop it man, you are here to ONLY change facts and reword posts you dont even comprehend the first time around, so how could your replies matter?

I did not say he had me do illegal things did i? I said he was the ONLY one brave enough to let the feds monitor his shit.

We flew banners that said "Fuck the FBI, we got hardcore feeds."

He was the one who could afford to put his name on it, have the FBI mintor it, and not do a damn thing. Cuz it was legit.

We had FAKE INSERTIOn, you need to reread before you mouth off.

translation:

OK. you're right. I break the law but its ok because I said so. Besides, I made the internet what it is today.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

If I had known you where this happening, I'd have left you alone. hahahahaha

I think 12clicks is drunk tonight and lookin to stir something up.

i believe that parents are mislead, photographers told them they could make them into stars,,

have you ever seen a model release form? the model looses are rights to the pictures,,,,, they prolly never knew what exactly their pics were going to be viewed from,,,

dude, instead of taking 6 posts to get from "I committed crimes" to "no,no it was all fake" why don't you just edit your first post saying "we have an "Obscenity Law" which basically says everything we film here is illegal"
?????

You keep fighting champ, you're the hero of the net. I'm off to bed.

pass out is more like it.

Playa - so true, most of the girls never even see the pics of themselves. If you notice all these teen fashion non nude sites have a very limited number of girls in the galleries.

The girls never see the pics, nor do the parents, thats what makes this so dangerous, theyre gone before anyone knows anything...

Honestly, do you think the parents of the girls on the up2-17 site have seen that site?

Tankers thread they mentioned a lawyer who said in the "test for cp, there are 14 steps, and if shes nude or not is only one of them"


I wish there was a way to find out what the other determining factors are, Maybe ill email the guy,... http://lawrencewalters.com

They said he gave a great speech on this topic, I wish I could have made it.

Smoking crack is more like it.......another thing that is legal in some countries!

TOP FIVE REASONS WHY OBSCENITY LAWS ARE INAPPROPRIATE IN THE DIGITAL AGE :

http://www.lawrencewalters.com/publi...-03-30-01.php3

as stated on http://www.lawrencewalters.com/

?SIMULATED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY?
Everyone abhors ?child pornography? as that term is generally understood. The public overwhelmingly supports the staggering prison sentences that are mandatory for those involved in it.

However, the legal definition of ?child pornography? broadly encompasses almost any visual depiction of a sexual nature of a model under18 years of age, not limited to the widely understood meaning of the term. Accordingly, one good reason to comply with § 2257 is to be sure the images on your site all are of individuals that were over 18 when photographed.

Even more ominous is a statute that will be reviewed this year by the Supreme Court. The law adds to the definition of ?child pornography? any depiction that ?appears to be? or ?leaves the impression? that it is child pornography. Accordingly, an erotic picture of a 25-year-old appearing to be 17 could be charged as child pornography. Thus, simulated child pornography is now the subject of the same harsh laws as if real.

Right on Spacey, thanks for the info brother.

Gee I go get some dinner and the cannons start launching over here.

Bottom line is this. None of you run CCBill, you run your own businesses. What we choose to do is our business. We are not the morality police, the porn police or anything along those lines.

Our terms say no one nude under 18. If we request documentation from ANY account, for ANY reason, be it model releases, age, image licenses, we expect to get it. If not, we take appropriate action.

As to your questions of legality and not, Fletch, you are incorrect on many points, including those regarding filming practices in your home state. Neither here nor there, nor am I going to debate them with you.

This thread has gotten to the point of ridiculous.

sleazy is to serenity as forrest gump is to debonaire

:winkwink: :thumbsup

Figured I would just post a few URL's to some legal info for people who wish to find out true information regarding these laws and their definitions.

in addition to http://lawrensewalters.com

Heres a good one on Obscenity Laws...

http://www.adultweblaw.com/laws/obscene.htm

and heres a case regarding "appears to be" play acting case...

http://www.moralityinmedia.org/nolc/...es/Oct00_5.htm

Heres ones on Sodomy Laws from what I see, many states are updating and changing these laws right now...

http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/i...ord?record=275

What I find most ironic is the people who fight the hardest to keep all pornographers lumped in with KP peddlers and yap about legalities the most are also the ones who whined the loudest when Visa exercised their very legal right to stop processing for beasty sites.

Strange the way some people's minds work.

I was really ignorant to these sites when this thread started. After reading some of the shit that's been posted about how this stuff is marketed and banner ads stressing the girls age, I think this is just downright wrong from a moral point of view if not a legal one.

I can't believe CC billers are allowing their businesses and reputations to be soiled by this shit that is obviously one foot away from CP.

Wrong is wrong, dont defend this shit, you look really bad guys.

Nz

Freedom of speech, Land of the free

Go and fuck yourselves

I can't fuckin BELIEVE I'm agreeing with 12***** again.....
*puts head in hands and moans in pain*

The last thing we need is a vague definition of CP. Already some prosecutors want to prosecute teen sites based on how young a model looks, not how young she actually IS. If this doesn't strike you as idiotic and dangerous, consider if prosecutors could put somone in prison for looking like a burglar even though he could prove he was not.

Yes, very dangerous, but obviously the general consensus of the good righteous webmasters of GFY.

"Accordingly, an erotic picture of a 25-year-old appearing to be 17 could be charged as child pornography."

that is fucking scary.


just remember kiddies, the law is a double-edged sword. no i don't like non nude. hell, there's a lotta porn i hate. but i see in this thread the same arguments that the religious right use against our industry:

1) the corellation between viewing porn and violence against women

2) the belief that thoughts equal action

3) the arrogance of one taste over another

do sickos jerk off to young girls in swim suits? of course. some sickos jerk off to 70 year old nuns in thier habits, but i don't see anyone coming to the defense of 70 year old nuns or aboriginal women in the pages of national geographic either.

the bottom line is the bottom line. if you don't like non nude, don't promote it and don't deal with those that do.

Fortunately since Lawyers like Walters use a 14 step test regarding cp there is NOT a vague definition.

When we are given a set of questions to ask whether something is cp it makes it more definite and valid.

Such is said for obscene material quoted here.... when one says "I find that offense or obscene" it has to be applied here.

--------------The current definition of obscenity requires the application of a three-part test enunciated by the Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). Under the so-called "Miller Test," a jury from the jurisdiction where an obscenity charge is brought will decide whether the content in question is obscene by asking:


"(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
-----------------------------

So if we are given the same template to sieve our decision regarding questionable teen content with, it becomes much easier to conclude what is, and what is NOT cp.

Much like a breathalizer test... a cop doesnt really have a way to tell HOW drunk you are, until he is given a "gauge" to judge the weight of your intoxication, just as when given a gauge to weigh the question of cp in said material.

Hey Fletch XXX, thanks for that link, good info.

But as it relates to arrest in Denver, the man was not arrested on CP charges, he was charged with "Child Exploitation" which I am sure has a completely different set of boundries. If they get the case to stick on him, it will be very easy for them to pin the same charges on anyone else with this type of site.

Bottom Line; it is wrong, thay have found a way to bust you for it, stay away from it.