Teens In Ponytails And Such ...

[nate]

Originally Posted by papagmp

You obviously have no clue, nor do you care, what is, and what is not legal.

Say hi to Bubba

So let me get this straight. If content is legal by virtue of compliance with the 2257 statutes, it can still be considered illegal under the 2257 statutes? Is that what you are saying.

The law is plain. If the performer is 18 or older, and you can provide documentation she is 18 or older, then you can post naked pictures of her involved in explicit sex acts or lasciviously exposing her genitalia. The law isn't concerned with pony tails, bedspreads, stuffed animals or makeup. As the point was made earlier, that is "mind police" territory.

Further, this thread has always been about content that is in compliance with the federal statutes, that is until you came in and changed the subject.

If you can show anywhere in any of the statutes where the intent of a producer to make a documented 18 year old look younger makes the content illegal, post the bit that says that. I'd like to see it. Since I "obviously have no clue" and you seem to think you do, do us a favor and point it out.

Also, I suggest you refrain from personal attacks against people that have done you no wrong.

[papagmp]

Originally Posted by nate

So let me get this straight. If content is legal by virtue of compliance with the 2257 statutes, it can still be considered illegal under the 2257 statutes? Is that what you are saying.

The law is plain. If the performer is 18 or older, and you can provide documentation she is 18 or older, then you can post naked pictures of her involved in explicit sex acts or lasciviously exposing her genitalia. The law isn't concerned with pony tails, bedspreads, stuffed animals or makeup. As the point was made earlier, that is "mind police" territory.

Further, this thread has always been about content that is in compliance with the federal statutes, that is until you came in and changed the subject.

If you can show anywhere in any of the statutes where the intent of a producer to make a documented 18 year old look younger makes the content illegal, post the bit that says that. I'd like to see it. Since I "obviously have no clue" and you seem to think you do, do us a favor and point it out.

Also, I suggest you refrain from personal attacks against people that have done you no wrong.

What I'm saying is you obviously haven't read the law. It is illegal to portray anyone, regardless of their real age, in a manner that makes them look younger that the age of 18. Hollywood lobbied, and won an exception but independent producers are not exempt.

So - such contend IS NOT in compliance with federal statutes - both IMO and in the professional opinion of my attorney - who just happens to represent dozens of adult producers.

So get a fuckin clue and read the law before you start assuming something is legal or not.

[LD]

Originally Posted by papagmp

It is illegal to portray anyone, regardless of their real age, in a manner that makes them look younger that the age of 18.

I didn't know that...interesting. Are there legal precedents as to what determines someone looking "younger than the age of 18?" I guess lolipops and pigtails might be suggestive, but...

[papagmp]

Originally Posted by LusciousDelight

I didn't know that...interesting. Are there legal precedents as to what determines someone looking "younger than the age of 18?" I guess lolipops and pigtails might be suggestive, but...

Title 18 part 1 Chapter 110 Paragraph 2256 - 11

"(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."

[nate]

Originally Posted by papagmp

Title 18 part 1 Chapter 110 Paragraph 2256 - 11

"(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 is the actual statute your defintion refers to:
(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



This is the SCOTUS specifically deeming it uncontitutional.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v.
FREE SPEECH COALITION et al.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 00—795. Argued October 30, 2001–Decided April 16, 2002

...

Held: The prohibitions of §§2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) are overbroad and unconstitutional. Pp. 6—21.

(a) Section 2256(8)(B) covers materials beyond the categories recognized in Ferber and Miller, and the reasons the Government offers in support of limiting the freedom of speech have no justification in this Court’s precedents or First Amendment law. Pp. 6—19.


...

The statute, furthermore, does not require that the context be part of an effort at “commercial exploitation.” Thus, the CPPA does more than prohibit pandering. It bans possession of material pandered as child pornography by someone earlier in the distribution chain, as well as a sexually explicit film that contains no youthful actors but has been packaged to suggest a prohibited movie. Possession is a crime even when the possessor knows the movie was mislabeled. The First Amendment requires a more precise restriction. Pp. 19—20.

(c) In light of the foregoing, respondents’ contention that §§2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) are void for vagueness need not be addressed. P. 21.

[nate]

Originally Posted by papagmp

What

I click your banner, I come across this:

Few things in life are as fine as a tight little pussy but I’m not all that sure if it’s normal for someone to be thinking that about their own little sister. That said, I’m always amazed at the number of guys that are willing to drag their little sister to some stranger and have her do her first porno - just because the little cunt pissed him off at her. This guy was pissed because his little sister had dented his Harley and the little cunt had no cash to pay for the damages. So, like any loving brother, he sold me her tight little sister pussy to be used in her first porno…………

How many times can you use the word little? Can you use it more times than the girl has stuffed animals on her bed? Or more times than she has little red ribbons in her hair? Or more times than a skilled makeup artist has shades of lipstick?

I think I'd hop off the high horse if I was you, then post the tidbit of the law that makes it illegal to portay any actor in any scene as any particular age, and the method the judge will instruct the jury the jury to follow in determining how old the actor looks.

Making such a determination is impossible, and that is the exact reason documentation of age is central to the law in question.

Given you ideas, we could do away with documenting age altogether and just have kangaroo courts putting people in prison based purely and solely upon guesswork. Get yourself 8 jurors of some fundamental faith, and they would have a good old time sending you up the river for setting up fantasies about guys forcing their little sisters into porno (well except maybe for mormons. They might elect you leader of the tabernacle... Note to any mormons, I kid, I kid).

If your lucky, I'll be on the jury and it will hang and you'll be a free man because I have more goddamn intelligence and actual morality than to allow a man's fate to be decided based on divination and prejudice.

Until you start posting statues or court opinions, I'm done with you.

[papagmp]

Originally Posted by nate

Until you start posting statues or court opinions, I'm done with you.

Break my fucking heart....................



P.S. Maybe I'll cast you on Bring Me Your Brother - have your little sister drag your ass in and have a hot tranny grudge fuck you for being such a prick.

[nate]

Originally Posted by papagmp

P.S. Maybe I'll cast you on Bring Me Your Brother

Or maybe you will resort to posting laws that havent been struck down by the supreme court as unconstitianal. I'll not hold my brath waiting.