|
50 pedos.....
:Oh crap |
Quote:
|
So many CJ's out there use young looking thumbs.been like that for years
|
yeah you are right pedophiles are funny. hahaha.
And oh dear god I almost wet myself: "I don't want my hairdresser to get raped" LOL. Can't you see that this will hurt your own income in the lung run? (I'll help you with 1 small example: regulations will become stricter and stricter to a point that it will just become impossible to earn an income from online porn even if you only run gay or mature sites) Laugh away problems as much as you want. Just gives the right wing tomatoes to throw our way and they will be getting the public opinion on their hand. |
interesting thread
|
Quote:
|
What would you do?
Letīs say you are the Webost/Domainregistrar you see this pic at a clients page: http://206.161.206.211/extremepink/th4147.jpg Ok theres a link : 2257 compliant ... ok its all sponsored content wait... 30 affiliate site. letsīs assume every affiliate page hast 20 + sources for their photos. That makes at least approx 600 mails that has to be send to find the docs for that specific girl ( for the domain registrar). WHAT WOULD YOU DO? Possibility 1) Shut down a site that is 80% pedo oriented and in the result everything is legal :/ Possibilty 2) Say "fuck it i am too lazy to find out if these girls are 18" and leave a pedo site online? |
Ok he could click the Link on the pic to find out what sponsor suplies this gallery and click on that sponsors 2257 link but in that case: (mobbucks) clicking the 2257 compliance link leads me to:
Quote:
So if i would be the registrar/webhost i would shut down that page to just to be on the safe site. |
I thought it was equally illegal to portray an adult as a minor in porn?
|
Quote:
can't get in trouble that way :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Do you think slapping a 35 year old girl across the face with a 14-inch cock and making her swallow cum on camera is any more morally acceptable than shooting an 18 year old?
|
Quote:
Hmm I jsut checked CNN and there is no news about the US becoming communist, did I miss something? Its innocent untill proven giulty. The fact that they can not shut his site down by LAW is one reason they cant. Also, why does everyone forget about fucking privacy laws? The most slick could do is link to all the 2257 pages and tell them to get the docs on their own. But then the company would say "wait your a domain registrar not someone authorized to have confidentail information so go eat shit". I hope slick sues the shit out of directnic. Hear is a question for ya. Whats better, a pedo looking at pictures of girls that are 18, but he thinks might be younger. Or That guy actually trading CP, or worse going out there and getting his own? |
Quote:
I don't like how people make these girls to look a bit younger than they are, but in all honesty, a little due dilligence would have avoided all those problems in the first place. So is everyone going to start roasting all those sponsors who provide the galleries and run the paysites now? Or is this going to simply be confined to the guy promoting them? For the record, I don't like CP, think people who do it/promote it SUCK, I am a parent, but knowing everything that is involved in running a tgp, link trades, etc, sometimes you can't always qualify what is on a trade or a link by only going there once. Most of the guys who set up trades have to go through periodically, and they aren't all going to see the same glaring problems others might. Is he suddenly then going to also be accountable for the content of the sites he's linking too as well? Or is he truly being roasted for just the content on his network? Where's the dividing line on politics and realism here? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Send me your moms ID with just her picture and birthdate. NO? Why not? maybe because its NONE OF MY FUCKING BUSINESS to see that? Hell lets see yours even. Seriously you need to look into privacy laws. You dont like either option. True of me and I am sure many others. But dont be ignorant to the fact of what happens. |
makes you think about how many 2257 docs are faked with fake id's ?
lots of shit*stains trying to make easy money |
Quote:
There is a difference between a boardname and someone you do business with. (I wonder why I actually bother to say things like this on gfy) |
Quote:
Would you be ok with me sending them without you having writen confidentiality from these new people that are going to have it? What if slick wanted it, and then would show it to a registrar. Would that still be ok with you? What if it it was your daughters ID? (this is assuming you have an of age daughter) |
Quote:
Would you be ok with me sending them without you having writen confidentiality from these new people that are going to have it? What if slick wanted it, and then would show it to a registrar. Would that still be ok with you? What if it it was your daughters ID? (this is assuming you have an of age daughter) What if the registrar was somedrunkregistrarbasement.com but they had a thing on the site saying they would keep things confidential. |
Quote:
And when you are looking to do business you make choices. You decide who you do business with and if you decide to do business with somedrunkregistrarbasement.com you agree to the terms they stipulated. So don't come complaining when they enforce their terms (within the legal bounders what this case is as they arent asking for any sensitive private data). |
Quote:
this is GREAT news for my model stalking/slashing hobby! COOL! I can tell from the look in her eyes that Raven loves me, she doesn't have to say a word. |
Quote:
|
loryn for president! :>
|
Quote:
How else am I gonna get married? |
Quote:
To be honest though, wouldn't you think that IF a pedo was on the net looking at pics that may or may not be underage that it would save a child in his area from being attacked by him? Instead of it making the pedo want to go out and harm a child he would get off on the pic(s) and that would be the end. (for now) Why would someone surf the net, see a pic (nude or otherwise) of a girl that looks underage and think to himself "hmm.. I think I'm gonna go out, find a little girl and have sex with her".. It just doesn't happen that way. Like you said, THEY have it in THEM already to do that. They were predators way before seeing pics on the net. Also, if a guy looks at pics of a girl knowing that she's 18+, but she looks younger, it DOES NOT make him a pedophile. If he was a pedo why the fuck would he be looking for pics of LEGAL girls that look younger? Why would he waste his time when it's not what he wanted in the first place? I guess the fact that most of the sales that I have made since 1997 have been to teen pay sites and teen webcams makes me a pedo? (according to the thinking of some people I mean). Another thing, do people actually know what a pedophile is? It's someone who has some sort of sexual attraction to PRE-PUBESCENT boy/girls. Ya, 13,14,15, 16, 17 year old is still not a good thing (depending on the age of the other person), but it's still not, by definition, a pedophile. |
Quote:
And the general concencus now is that there should be more child porn because it's not encouriging but stopping pedos? Or should we just not care about child pornography is it doesn't do any harm once it has been shot? Maybe they should just legalize all existing child pornography and just put a ban on new material to be produced? The law defines the age of 18. Untill that age it's child pornography. That was the point. Even if the models are 18 it's still illegal to make them look 13. |
Quote:
Personally I think it is sick. I stay as far away from it as possible. However the girls is over 18 it is legal. I don't think all of the girls on those sites are over 18 or were at the time the photo was taken, way too many of them look WAY too young, some look 12 - 13 years old. If someone wants to use 18 year old girls and make them look 12 there is noting illegal about it. I hope they get checked for 2257 once a week, and they should be prepaired to have a spot light on them to make sure the content is legit What i think is crazy is their affiliates who use these pictures of girls who look like 12 - 17 years old and they put the pictures on their sites/servers and they take the word of the affiliate company that everything is legit. That is fucking crazy, how can you use content that looks underage and not verify their age, put your life in someone else's hands and trust them that every single picture is legit. Not to mention what are you going to do when the police knock on your door, tell them sorry it's not mine go see the affiliate company, :1orglaugh . they will drag you to jail. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
No it's not. The supreme court disagrees with you, oh mighty armchair scholar: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/...orn/index.html |
Quote:
A/ I have retracted the rape thing. It was not the point I was making. B/ It IS ILLEGAL to make 18 year old girl looking 12. There is more law than just 2257. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...-000-.html#8_C |
Quote:
It's their website and the have to do with the bullshit involved with false CP complaints. They choose to be proactive and do not want to even give the appearence of having CP on their site. However you and the other person who mentioned this both mentioned what they were doing in a bad way and mentioned sueing them? What the hell is wrong with you people. YOu want to sue them because they wont accept models who look like kids ??? god damn. |
Quote:
it is illegal to make an adult look like a 13yr old and depict them in sexually explicit manner. always has been... since the beginning of hte interweb. |
Quote:
I don't see where it says people over the age of 18 but look under 18 are illegal to use their content. Looks is totally way subjective, but if you can copy paste the paraghrap I would like to read it. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
(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. ..... ..... ..... ..... (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 definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults. |
Quote:
And I honestly know plenty of girls who look young and are actually in their 20s ... Personally, I know these girls. In my life. And lets face it ... everyone here who drools over Jordan Capri should go wash themselves in Holy Water... she's in her 20's, Married, and she BLATANTLY looks 16. Anyone who says otherwise is talking shit. |
Quote:
anyway... too lazy to look it all up.... but i do remember vividly the police officer that posted on Netpond many years ago (maybe 1998) and gave a very good run down on state and federal law on the issue. it was pretty clear that you didn't want to dress a girl up in braces, pig tails and a hello kitty skirt. given the total volume of content out there showing exactly that and the fact that a company like www.teenrevenue.com and others can do what they do, they must have some legal argument on their side. |
.... msg deleted
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://jackson.fbi.gov/pressrel/2004/jk110104.htm (2004 or 2 years after the pupreme court overturned 2256) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...tion_2256.html (U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04) |
Quote:
What you are quoting, as I understand it, is explaining the different ways it can be depicted, meaning it is not limited to just internet, or film, or video , etc... it is not defining "child pornography" but the different ways it can be distributed. I am sure an attorney can clear this up, but I am 99% you can not be arrested for CP for having a naked 18 year old girl on your site that *some one* thinks looks 17 or younger. |
Quote:
http://jackson.fbi.gov/pressrel/2004/jk110104.htm Press Release 100 W. Capitol Street Suite 1553 Jackson, Mississippi 39269 November 8, 2004 Bob Garrity, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Mississippi, announced as follows: On Monday, November 1, 2004, Special Agents of the FBI, assisted by the Prentiss County Sheriff's Department, arrested KENNETH JASON BEARDEN, age 24, of Booneville, Mississippi, pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. BEARDEN, an employee of the Mississippi Department of Transportation, was indicted by a federal grand jury on October 19, 2004, on one charge of knowingly possessing images of child pornography that had been shipped and transported in interstate commerce by means of computers, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2252A(a)(5 )(B) and 2256(8). If found guilty, BEARDEN faces up to $250,100 in fines and as many as 10 years imprisonment with up to 3 years supervised release. Garrity stressed that indictments and arrests are accusations only and there is a presumption of innocence prior to any judicial proceeding. |
Quote:
?child pornography? means any visual depiction, including any photograph of sexually explicit conduct, where such visual depiction is a digital image is indistinguishable(*) from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. (*) 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. |
Quote:
you're right... i am recalling the law before it was struck down. and the guy that was arrested and convicted before this was struck down. angry gay guy - 1 insecure heterosexual - 0 i am personally a little torn on the issue. from one side, a simple, sound argument is "hey, its 100% legal"... from the other side, i can imagine how a parent feels looking at their 13 year old daugher.. then seeing a site like that and knowing why guys are there and knowing its not just 13yr old boys with a healthy, curiosity that are looking. thats gotta be a creepy and weird feeling. |
Quote:
http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v55/no1/mota.pdf |
Quote:
How can you arrest someone base on a law that was revoked 2 years earlier? |
Quote:
hahahaha, I can relate, I was jusgt editing a big fat hairy dude on dude pic :1orglaugh |
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/f...20%20%20%20%20
published 01/03/05 |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123