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.