Teens In Ponytails And Such ...

[nate]

Also, what does "look younger than legal" even mean? Is there a trait that humans develop when they turn 18 that I haven't heard about?

[Toby]

Originally Posted by nate

Why?

Read my prior posts in this thread. I've already covered that one.

Originally Posted by nate

Also, what does "look younger than legal" even mean? Is there a trait that humans develop when they turn 18 that I haven't heard about?

You're just being deliberately obtuse. I don't play that game.

[stuveltje]

the only issue i have with porn is, when a girl looks to young in my point of view i wont list it, i dont fucking care the 2257 sais she has the right age, when i think she looks underage and she gives a wrong thinking to guys on the pics, i wont list it...i wont fucking deal with it...

[Toby]

Originally Posted by stuveltje

the only issue i have with porn is, when a girl looks to young in my point of view i wont list it, i dont fucking care the 2257 sais she has the right age, when i think she looks underage and she gives a wrong thinking to guys on the pics, i wont list it...i wont fucking deal with it...

BINGO!

[papagmp]

Originally Posted by nate

Why?

Read the Child Protections Act: Section 18 U.S.C. 2257

nuf said...................

[papagmp]

Question - is this going too far?

http://www.failpix.net/wp-content/up...1/babyfail.jpg

[tickler]

Originally Posted by Toby

And for the record, I'm also not comfortable with many of those hardcore fetish niches.

I'm uncomfortable with some of them also. CBT scares the shit out of me personally(guy), and no girl is ever gonna get to tie me up after seeing that stuff.

But, that doesn't mean I won't promote it.

To each their own I guess.

[nate]

Originally Posted by Toby

Read my prior posts in this thread. I've already covered that one. You're just being deliberately obtuse. I don't play that game.

I guess I don't understand the reasoning behind making judgments based on intent when the action is legal. Not that I care what you post or link to or whatever. You are free to do as you please. In the future, I wont ask you about anything else. Have a nice life.

Read the Child Protections Act: Section 18 U.S.C. 2257

That's besides the point. We are talking specifically about images that are legal under the law and why some will not post, link to, or whatever to images that are legal under that law.

[papagmp]

Originally Posted by nate

That's besides the point. We are talking specifically about images that are legal under the law and why some will not post, link to, or whatever to images that are legal under that law.

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

Say hi to Bubba

[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...

[nate]

that makes them look younger that the age of 18

LOL. Who fooled you into thinking that?

[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."

[papagmp]

Originally Posted by nate

LOL. Who fooled you into thinking that?

ROTFLMAO - I guess Ron White was right after all, you just can't fix stupid.

[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.

[Licker4U]

You're fucked nate, give up...

Here's your sign....

[Pagan]

I can't recall hearing anyone busted for this, but that doesn't mean it won't happen mainly because the responsible producers have their ducks in a row and have the appropriate documents on file. A lot of guys have fantasies about younger partners just as a lot of younger people fantasize about having older "teachers" break them in. If they didn't, quite a few popular websites would not exist. (Grandpas on teens, cougars, etc.) Is the fantasy healthy? I don't know - it isn't my fantasy and I do know it exists, right along with the sleep/rape fantasy.

You have to promote what you feel comfortable with. If you don't like CBT, don't promote it. I don't care for the body fluids, so I don't promote them. I have started doing some solo teen sites where the model is just barely legal. The staging is on the adult side so it doesn't bother me. I did do a site with teens and stuffed animals, but it also matches the paysite (Teddyfuckers). It had teens using stuffed animals to act grownup. And, some girls do still have braces at 18, so that isn't always a good marker. A lot of models use makeup to alter their ages - usually younger looking older. If you don't feel comfortable promoting barely-legal, don't do it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you do. By the same token, if you don't want it on your linklists, say so. That's your right. I do still have the right to build within the law.

It is so hard to determine age with a lot of people. How can you tell just by looking at a picture that someone is 17 versus 18? I don't ever recall seeing a visible stamp that changes between 17, 18, 19, and even 20 and 21 with some adults. I also thought the entire idea behind 2257 was to require the content producers to verify these models are of age before shooting, and that the website producers were also required to maintain the same records. Pre-2257 we only had the sayso of the producer.

What does 18 look like?

[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

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

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.

[nate]

You're fucked nate, give up...

Here's your sign....

Not according to the supreme court.

[nate]

In more plain speech

In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that the two prohibitions described above are overbroad and unconstitutional... Moreover, the Court found the CPPA to have no support in Ferber since the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Provisions of the CPPA cover "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 our precedents or in the law of the First Amendment" and abridge "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech," wrote Justice Kennedy.