Thats why i stay away from that shit. Last thing i want to do is go to court and a jury decide if the girl looks over 18, when in fact she was over 18. I just can't see someone going to jail for being 20 but people *think* she looks 16... that would suck.

Obviously this has not been tested, do you know of any cases where someone made a 18 year old girl look young, and then the person got arrested for CP, convicted and it didnt matter that she wasn't a minor.

some provisions of the law were struck down... and you are ignoring the fact that you keep citing provisions of the law that are talking about actual minors... not adults dressed as minors.

For the purposes of this chapter, the term -
(1) "minor" means any person under the age of eighteen years;


(8) "child pornography" means any visual depiction, including
any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or
computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by
electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit
conduct, where -
(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.

I agree with you. it's a bad situation. You don't want to open pandora's box to a jury deciding how the girls look on your site regardless if they are really 18,19,20 etc.. At least using their age is cut and dry, *their looks* leaves too much up in the air. It is bad enough that "obscenity" is subjective... i know it when i see it " etc... now if they do that for how the girls looks, it's going to be bad.

So how do you dry the line. But at the same time, that shit is out of hand.... tricky situation.

no. read again.
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

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/f...20%20%20%20%20
published 01/03/05

They didnt break the law.

only illegal if they are intentionally portrayed to be under 18. people cant help their appearance. i'm 22 and look 17-18. when i was 18 i looked 15...

He's talking about DirectNic doing illegal stuff by violating privacy laws (which they weren't)

I didn't say it makes it better or worse. I was just stating that to many people don't understand what an actual pedophile is. Yes, it's still bad if the girl is 13, 14, 15, 16 etc.. If the girl is 18, but looks younger that will not cause some sicko to go out and do something to kids. They don't need porn to do that. They would just do it because they are fucked in the head. My point was that a pedophile doesn't need to see pics of young looking or actual young girls to start thinking "hmmm I think I will go fuck a 13 year old". Never said that it was good.

seems like boy alley approves of child porn ?

Do you read the links you post?
The conclusion says that the new amendment will not stand but thats an opinion of a lawyer, NOT a supreme court verdict.

Here's the difference between the two; the 18 years old do it for the money, the 45 years old for fun :thumbsup

You have clearly not worked close to ifriends as much as I did. I would sue their ass in a heartbeat. BTW, if you browse there for a while you'll find plenty of models that looks underaged and that are broadcasting everyday.

Besides, if you read the rest of my post maybe you'll get my point.

Seems like John69 is an idiot ?

PMDave:

So infact 2257 regulations don't apply anymore? Where do you get your LEGAL advice? The way i see it you don't care about 2257, you don't care about laws and facts..... you shut down whenever you think it's justified? That just makes you a VERY DANGEROUS person in your job. Do you even know that you stated that people should stay away from DN because they got a trigger happy guy with his finger on the button?

I personally think you made this statement because you realize you don't have ANY LEGAL bases to shut don't Slicks sites.

You say that this isn't the wild west anymore? With you on the button it actually is turning back to the wild west: no laws, no rules.

Just my 2 cents

By the way: isn't it a BAN offense to call someone a pedo on gfy? There seems to be alot going on of that the last 24 hours. (this is not directed personally to you PMDave)

Forget it..... i mixed up identities.... my misstake! This should be directed to AI Mike