|
Quote:
|
Quote:
"I have confidence that COPA will be amended to exclude the secondary producer from 2257 responsibility" COPA has absolutely nothing to do with 2257, so this statement makes absolutely zero sense. "I think that COPA will say that no matter how old the model is... that if you present the model as preteen or underage that you will be responsible." COPA, when originally passed, it DID contain that provision. It was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. End of that story. As for being "confident that secondary producers will be excluded from 2257". It's sure as hell not looking that way. The judge in the current FSC case virtually rejected ALL of the first amendment and privacy arguments that were made. The ONLY reason an injunction is in place right now is because the judge was bound by a higher court ruling, which basically said the regs overstepped authority granted to them by statute. Now that 4472 has passed, which specifically grants the authority, things aren't looking good right now. Perhaps you should be minding your own business until you learn what the fuck you're talking about? |
...and again, 2257 has NOTHING to do with this thread at all.
|
Going back to the comments of girls looking young in their pictures, with the philosophy that even if a girl is 18 years old, but looks young, it shouldn't be posted, does that mean that if a 15 year old has big tits and looks over 18, it's ok to post pictures of her ?????
As far as my trades go, when I inspect the trades, I see no popups. I'm sure that there's a few of them that go by country, and since I'm in the US, I probably never see them, that has happend before. I myself am TOTALLY against trading with people like that. Like I say, someone send over a list of those sites and I'll have a look. |
I didn't claim to be an expert on the subject... ;) Anyway around... it's not over yet... no matter how it looks... but thx for clearing up my misconceptions. My apologies for offending you with my misguided ideas.
However... You can take your attitude and go fuck yourself sideways with a double sided dildo. I love how gfy is full of self-righteous jerks like you that attack people that they don't even know to make themselves look better. It would have been just as easy to post... "You are wrong for these reasons..." but I don't think you should sit there in your little bubble and post rude shit whenever someone posts something you don't agree with or know is wrong. It's much easier and profitable to be courteous and understanding. |
Quote:
it means that you are intentionally showing girls which often look much younger than 18 and in doing so, are intentionally walking a very fine line between "legal" and "multiple felonies" and public enemy number 1... and not only that, the content is something that most people anywhere find questionable at best, regardless of the law. looking further, you link to people with even more questionable pics than your own, which doesn't help you. i personally don't have a problem with it. but pretending that the powers that be does not is just stupid. like it or not YOU and YOU PICS are the target of the federal government right now. meaningless arguments, poor analogies and silly semantics, won't stop federal agents from arresting you and forcing you to defend yourself in a criminal trial. you are already breaking the law being that you are not 2257 compliant anyway. and how fucking dumb is this??? not only not legal, but you state yourself that you dont have any info at all for some content - http://majorpervert.com/2257.html i dont agree with what DirectNIC did if they have no legal liability for your content/domain. However, you just can't make any sensible arguments that you are operating fully within the law or that there isn't any reason for anyones concern either. |
Quote:
I still don't understand why having a naive girl of 18 having 50 year old men jerking off to her is any worse than having a naive girl of 18 doing an interracial DP gangbang and having 30 year old guys jerking off. Eliminating sites like Slicks will do nothing to lower the heat. He just needs to police his trades better and then everything will be fine. |
Something has bothered me about Slick's sites since I first looked at them. I've finally figured out what it is:
Because of the way his sites are set-up- as a high-skim TGP- there's no difference from a surfer's point-of-view between the sponsors and the trade partners. They're promoted in the same way- i.e. click the big image to go there. There's nothing in the structure of the site that indicates trade partners to be out of his control. The only distinction is that Slick gets paid for sponsor promotion and gets traffic for traffic trades- but this is intentionally obscured from the point of view of the surfer. His sites promote the trade partners as much as the sponsors. This makes him more responsible for the content that's on those trade partner sites. Let's say that instead of his current set-up he had a box on the site with text links to his trade partners. And at the top of the box he had text stating that he had no control over what was in those sites. Then his sites would probably be viewed quite differently, even if they did link to bad stuff. He wouldn't be viewed as promoting that material. I'm not suggesting that's a solution, or that it would be appropriate here. I'm just using it to illustrate that vigorously promoting your trading partners is different than just linking to them. |
Quote:
|
Corona, sometimes it isn't just about "just about legal" and "not quite legal", but in presentation and standards. Most of Slick's sites (and those that he link to) purposely use images that portray petite or undeveloped models, and use very questionable domains and site names to suggest and imply that some or all of the models are underage. Site names like "gall 17" and "just young teens" sort of leave an impression, no?
Pandering to pedos is an issue that we could go on about for a long time... |
Quote:
I'd argue that pandering to pedos is the core problem - the images may be technically legal or otherwise, but the overall intent is to pander to perversity and by it's nature will attract the interest of law enforcement. |
The links from http://slicksnetwork.com/ don't open anymore...
|
Quote:
Anyone remember Adult Origin? ;) |
Wow, can't believe everybody defending a child porn peddler.
Slick belongs in prison. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Boyalley, the sudden disappearance of the websites would make one wonder about the legalities of the sites involved, no?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Considering the way DirectNic has handled this, and what their policies appear to be? No. |
the "host" should have shut down the sites first.
|
What's next! Will Directnic visit the anime domains registered through its service, seems to be some young looking anime girls not to mention the galleries featuring The Simpsons!
How abouit bdsm sites, are they going to start asking the webmasters for proof that participates actualy signed consent forms and are willing participants. Where'sit going to stop at? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If people would just check out the sponsors that I use, Braincash, Swank Dollars, Fuck You Cash, Jason & Alex, NS Cash, Lightspeed Cash, Paper Street Cash, Bang Bros, plus there's a pile of repitable CCBill sponsors, there's no questionable sponsors (in my eyes) that I see as being illegal. I know, I know, someone s gonna say "How do you know if they have the proper documents, like somene said before" Well, if you're gonna dig that fucking deep to find something to complain about, then you can go ahead and fuck yourself because that's like saying that every single site and gallery out there could have their records messed up, so NO sponsor should be trusted. |
Quote:
I think that someone needs to teach a class in how to determine what's child porn and not because apparently some people have no idea. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
We aren't just talking about questionable teen content. Shit like this could lead anywhere. |
Quote:
Not sure of the programs above but we have no problem handing over Age verification docs with legal representation for this sort of matter to protect our affiliates. I stand behind PornoPushers affiliates 100%. Infact soon as I get a chance I will add it to our TOS |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
People should also remember that Terms of Service are a contract, however a contract CANNOT enforce someone breaking the law. You can't have a legally binding contract to force someone to murder someone else. The "legality" of the contract does not make the actual act legal.
People who are in countries affected by privacy laws should also remember this, in almost all instances of breaking those privacy laws, the jailtime involved is longer than a 2257 infraction would be. There are state privacy laws too, it's worth knowing what the laws are locally, and for more than just these issues (content producers who sell their content should be read up on these laws as well). |
Honestly, I thought it went without saying that if you have a business, adult or not, you have an attorney. And you have that attorney go over your contracts. And you have that attorney look at your websites. This Slick fellow has apparently been around for a while yet didn't even have an attorney?
People REALLY need to start viewing this as a business instead of a hobby. |
Perhaps there is a solution for this problem. I mean HOSTED THUMBS. Isn't it safer if TGP/CJ owners won't host the thumbs on their servers but will just link to the ones hosted by their sponsors?
|
Quote:
|
seems most of his sites are online agan :thumbsup
from what i see only 3 or 4 are still offline at the moment. |
yo. good to here that Slick. you are a stand up guy! hope we will be trading again ;)
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123