I have direct evidences that MET-ART has been selling underage porn for 7 years
 

I have direct evidences that MET-ART has been selling underage porn for the last 7 years ...



... and the leader in online payments :)
CCbill has been processing that CP shit from the beginning till now



If somebody is interested here is my email mauriziomaranghi@yahoo.com

I bet you have unimpeachable credibility...the email addy says that...|banghead|

If you have evidence, why don't you send it to some people that matter (FBI or who ever handles it) instead of who ever at a board that is interested?

Strange first post....

Someone key the Twilight Zone music…

Well, the thread was started in a bit of a weird way, and the pages in question have disappeared, but through the magic of SE caches and whatnot, you can see the text (but not images) that were there.

I am linking this ONLY because no images come up. I would not knowingly link to CP images.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...n&ct=clnk&cd=1

As I said... no images... no chance of an issue like that... but whoa!

Alex

frightening, but predictable

12 and 13... whoa is right |dizzy|

Sigh I went through a lot of this last year and caught hell for it.

Met Art was FOUNDED as a CP site...they STILL have CP within their site...all in the name of "art"

(I guess a 10yr old naked with her legs spread open is art not cp)


Actually last July's Thread

That is 110% bullshit. I have forwarded this thread to the met-art law team.

Jay, Mr Douglas has already put an appearance in at the Zoo, and honestly, his answers were less than encouraging. IN a round about way, he admitted that the page in question existed, but that Met-art didn't sell the book themselves, but Amazon did the selling.

It gets to the same question as always: Porn is legal, and surprisingly, some forms of "nude child art" is legal as well, but when a porn site is promoting or marketing child art, is it in fact legal? Just as importantly, is it acceptable within the framework of the adult online business?

While I don't like the way this guy came blowing onto the boards with this, the questions raised here and elsewhere are at least valid in passing.

Alex

I never wanted to list free sites with that sponsor, and a quick look around there site confirms that....

Jay, most of the artsy european adult sites were founded in the borderline area of art/nude children in art.
For many years many of the top artists depicted nude children in their works...from the most famous painters in history to many of the top photographers in the world today.
Even in the US portrayal's of naked children was common place. Coffee Table books were even prevalent.
Why do you think a movie such as Pretty Baby with Brooke Shields would be allowed in the US today given todays climate?

Admitted Met Art for one has cleaned up their act a great deal, and much of the work with naked children has been removed...but not all.

Them putting up a disclaimer saying that all models "currently" on their site were over 18 at the time of shooting does not make it so, especially when they officially take the stand they are exempt from offering any proof it is so.

So as I said they are indeed making an effort in removing the obvious ones...though several still slip their notice...but what of their great body of work of young ladies? If she has breasts does that make her 18 or just 16? To blindly accept their word that every model there is definitely over 18, this from a company that is famous for having children on their site in the past (and still do)...all the while they present absolutely no proof of their claim. In fact deny they even have to prove it. Way too risky in todays climate no matter how well they sell.

If anything them having Douglas as their attorney only hurts the free speech coalitions standing.

While I do not feel that any site should feel obliged to prove a model's age to anyone other than investigators in their own jurisdiction, I do feel that portraying young women who appear even younger than their biological age is dangerous. Nobody is fooled by those who glamourize the sexualization of children whether it is this company disguising it as fine art, or those other programs that deliberately go the braces & pigtail route. There is an extensive list of companies and programs that we refuse to deal with on any level, as we do not wish to support these practises even indirectly.

No offense intended but either show the proof or shut up. Without showing any evidence you're only spreading a nasty and dangerous rumor. On the other hand, if you show some supporting evidence then you are sharing some very important information that should be openly public.

Rumor or truth? What's it going to be?

I just checked and Maurizio Marang signed up yesterday, posted yesterday and has not been back since. This was all done within an hour.

SirMoby, did you not follow the link I provided? The image are gone (removed from their server since this started, which is the only reason I would post a link) but the page explains what the content was - as cached by google.

It should be noted that MetArt specifically blocked the wayback machine from caching past versions of their public pages.

There is a much more complete thread on this subject (including comments from the lawyer Douglas) at the zoo.

I just want to add this: I won't lose any more time on this subject. Met-art and their lawyer feel they are on solid ground. However, I will reconsider some of my linking considerations in the future as a result of this thread and others.

Alex

Just an aside for US people - if you did follow that link and did not report it if you saw CP to the Center for missing and exploited children or the FBI you actually are committing a felony - unfortunately the way the law reads if ya see it you got to report it.

That said - you better be damn sure that it meets the requirements of 2256 - the definition of CP is very specific in that they have to be "engaging in sexually explicit conduct" and that explicit conduct is defined in 2252 - again very specifically so it might be worthwhile to educate yourselves

Having moral issues with what you see is in some cases very different than having legal issues - Im not taking a stand here as I have my own feelings - but from a legal standpoint I would make sure if I was going to post that I saw CP I had better have covered my own ass
There are numerous cases of people that are sitting in jail right now because they say they looked at something - realized it was CP - and backed out - but never reported it. They got their jailtime the same way someone that wanted to be ther would have.

My friend Maurizio Maranghi (Met-Art, Mosteroticteens, Met-Girls, Met-Models)
 

http://n-u-d-e.us/?p=460
All about Met-Art
My friend Maurizio Maranghi (Met-Art, Mosteroticteens, Met-Girls, Met-Models) English Version

|banghead|

As an European I object to that comment.

And as a human being I object to your entire post, you are making excuses for sexually abusing children and in my books that puts you well and truly among the bad guys.

Met Art does not contain any porn at all. Guys, look at the site before you post.

Also, look at the date before you post.

http://n-u-d-e.us/?p=430
 

http://n-u-d-e.us/?p=430
The 242.1 article in Russia |banghead| was accepted only 08.12.2003 but we had got acquainted with Julia earlier. Before it I was working for MOSTEROTICTEENS and Mauricio Maranti |kissass| told me nothing about the age. In the future Met- Art also was taking the age light-headed but they could quickly delete the photos if something was going to be wrong. I had an influence on

Mauricio and I did not advise him to work with Sasha Fradis.|attention The age in Russia when the girls could be posed for the photos at that time was 14. Sasha opened his studio named “Studio 13”

Then he started taking drugs and was put into the prison.|angry| He was not producing pornography but he also was charged of it. Mauricio deleted very quickly Sasha’s erotic photos of the young girls from the press as well as mine. Even now I know that a lot of girl on Met-Art are under aged but they would not put into the prison the father of three children they also would not leave hungry his beautiful wife. Besides the Italian mafia would not like to loose such a good source of income and the place where thy can launder money. I think that Mauricio has got everything all right with senators and the judges in Texas. Also I do not want 500 of Russian and Ukrainian cameramen and a huge variety of models to be without work. Everyone has already known about it for example: cameramen working for Met-Art and their partners. This topic is usually spoken on master-x.com and on the Russian forum AVM. So do not rat at FBI, write better Evochka Hazelnut http://vkontakte.ru/id22801671

I had a site a few years back and when I was checking my stats I came across a new website that had my link on their page. I checked out the site and the content was underage girls 13-17 years of age, they were not nude but dressed in lingerie and other revealing outfits. I immediately contacted the webmaster to have my link removed. I then contacted a website, whose name I have forgotten, to report them. The site I reported them to will investigate the site and contact the proper authorities.
I was told they had tried several times in the past to get the site taken down, but since the girls were not nude, nobody would do anything.

I guess what I am trying to say is to keep checking you referring URLs, because there are some sites out there that you do not want to be associated with.