Davis Images wrote:
OK, just lock it or whatever. The story is still relevant. Then again we have nude photos of models on MM, so is MM full of porn? Anyway, just kill it.

you can remove the link and give a synopsis of the article. Make sure to quote and give credit where it is due so it's not plagiarism.

Jessalyn wrote:
It's against MM rules to link to pornography, that site contains porn.

fair play but ask yourself what was the intent of the op............... therefor the reason y this thread is still open.........  well what do i know!!!!!!!

Jessalyn wrote:
It's against MM rules to link to pornography, that site contains porn.

OOPS

Jessalyn wrote:
It's against MM rules to link to pornography, that site contains porn.

my god are you like the freakin forum Nazi or something!? this is the second forum in a row that i've looked at where you are correcting someone about a post!!!

neways... that article is crazy. i can't believe they are charging her for that! she obviously needs serious help.

Davis Images wrote:
No worries...... copied story so people here won't be offended by nudity.

I'm not offended by nudity, I'm just trying to give you some friendly advice to keep your thread open. That's all. It's MM's rules, not mine.

Kathryne wrote:

my god are you like the freakin forum Nazi or something!? this is the second forum in a row that i've looked at where you are correcting someone about a post!!!

neways... that article is crazy. i can't believe they are charging her for that! she obviously needs serious help.

see my post below yours.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
We had this discussion several months ago.   A number of people asked what would happen if a minor did pornographic self-portraits of themself and posted them online.  A number of us, including attorneys, opined that it didn't matter that it was a self-portrait, child pornography is illegal.

I have no idea what the content of these photos is, but it is interesting in one respect.  They raided her home and took her computer. On the computer they found additonal pictures of herself, which they allege are pornographic.  It is interesting that it could be illegal to possess an explicit photo of yourself, even if you didn't disseminate it.  I wonder if there would have been a problem if she had merely taken the pictures but never posted them on the net?

In any event, the answer is "yes" if you shoot explicit pictures of yourself when you are under age and then post them on the net, you may be charged under child pornography laws.

its a strange place our world indeed.
.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
The link should come down, but that is a different matter.

We had this discussion several months ago.   A number of people asked what would happen if a minor did pornographic self-portraits of themself and posted them online.  A number of us, including attorneys, opined that it didn't matter that it was a self-portrait, child pornography is illegal.

I have no idea what the content of these photos is, but it is interesting in one respect.  They raided her home and took her computer. On the computer they found additonal pictures of herself, which they allege are pornographic.  It is interesting that it could be illegal to possess an explicit photo of yourself, even if you didn't disseminate it.  I wonder if there would have been a problem if she had merely taken the pictures but never posted them on the net?

If you are legally an adult you can have all the explicit self portraits on your computer or on your walls that you wish -- unless you live some place that still has draconian "community standards" laws.  No point in getting paranoid about nothing.  This reminds me of a case in my home town.  Several years ago, a bunch of underage gay prostitutes were busted plying their trade on a street known for such activity.  In addition to sex for sale, they were also selling homemade XXX videos of themselves.  They got busted for kiddie porn.

Doug

Jessalyn wrote:
It's against MM rules to link to pornography, that site contains porn.

Your kidding.  You allow male models NUDE holding their crotch or worse as their avatar photo and that shows up on the MM  main page for all the world to see including non members or minors.

I agree there should be no porn, but if you are going to clean it up, clean it ALL up.

Jessalyn wrote:
It's against MM rules to link to pornography, that site contains porn.

Ok - then why is there a 16 yr old girl from Europe that has a few porn type poses on this site  ??   


You have to use the search browse function ... LOL   


EL

Jessalyn wrote:
folks! I don't make the rules. I was just letting the OP know so their thread didn't get locked. someone in another thread got warned by a moderator this morning to take down a link to a pornographic image.

Leave Jess alone, folks.  She's right, and was only trying to help.

Davis Images wrote:
Child porn laws gone crazy?

    Monday, March 29, 2004

    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

    State police have charged a 15-year-old Latrobe girl with child pornography for taking photos of herself and posting them on the Internet.

    Police said the girl, whose identity they withheld, photographed herself in various states of undress and performing a variety of sexual acts. She then sent the photos to people she met in chat rooms.

    A police report did not say how police learned about the girl. They found dozens of pictures of her on her computer.

    She has been charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography.

Message from government: we own you. You do not own yourself. We decide what you are allowed to do with your own body. Who was harmed here? And by whom?

Frankly, the girl is probably troubled. Does she need to be charged with child porn? Of course not. How will that possibly help her make healthy choices in life?

Kathryne wrote:

my god are you like the freakin forum Nazi or something!? this is the second forum in a row that i've looked at where you are correcting someone about a post!!!

neways... that article is crazy. i can't believe they are charging her for that! she obviously needs serious help.

No kidding,whats up with this crap,i see it all the time.
"duh its against the rules to link an 18+ image,its against the rules to link to a site that might have nudity bla bla bla"
Who the hell cares? Its just a forum,if the mods find it offensive theyll remove it,its their job not yours,nor any other members.
Sometimes people keep posting these "against forum rules" spam nonsense even into a 2nd or 3rd page of a thread,even after its been said 10 times.Dont like the thread dont look at it?

As for the article,a person should be able to do wathever the heck she wants with his/her body.The part about posting them on the internet however I can see being a problem and I'd agree she should be stopped,but I dunno the extent of the charges.

lotusphoto wrote:
they have to have this law,

if nothing else it's not to difficult to imagine a scumbag taking explicit pictures of a minor and claiming they were self portraits.. the laws have to close as many loopholes as possible...

i hate to think this, but someday there will be a backlash against the scumbags that will allow the feds to define free speech, when that happens...

"A law" is needed.  But not laws that ignore this situation.

The situation you mention means that a scumbag had been identified.  Even if the law didn't allow for prosecuting the child, then they would still be able to pursue the scumbag.  Putting the child behind bars doesn't hurt the scumbag.

This kind of things smacks of "We had to burn the village to save it, Sir!"

Leond wrote:

No kidding,whats up with this crap,i see it all the time.
"duh its against the rules to link an 18+ image,its against the rules to link to a site that might have nudity bla bla bla"
Who the hell cares? Its just a forum,if the mods find it offensive theyll remove it,its their job not yours,nor any other members.
Sometimes people keep posting these "against forum rules" spam nonsense even into a 2nd or 3rd page of a thread,even after its been said 10 times.Dont like the thread dont look at it?

As for the article,a person should be able to do wathever the heck she wants with his/her body.The part about posting them on the internet however I can see being a problem and I'd agree she should be stopped,but I dunno the extent of the charges.

obviously you didn't read any of my other posts. I merely let the OP know that it was against the rules in case they didn't know so that their thread did not get locked and they could keep going with the discussion.

trying to help someone out makes me an ass? news to me. I never said I didn't like the thread or was offended by porn/nudity.

Luminos wrote:

Leave Jess alone, folks.  She's right, and was only trying to help.

And I, for one...and overjoyed that the Justice League is here to save us from any possible wrongdoing.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
We had this discussion several months ago.   A number of people asked what would happen if a minor did pornographic self-portraits of themself and posted them online.  A number of us, including attorneys, opined that it didn't matter that it was a self-portrait, child pornography is illegal.

I have no idea what the content of these photos is, but it is interesting in one respect.  They raided her home and took her computer. On the computer they found additonal pictures of herself, which they allege are pornographic.  It is interesting that it could be illegal to possess an explicit photo of yourself, even if you didn't disseminate it.  I wonder if there would have been a problem if she had merely taken the pictures but never posted them on the net?

In any event, the answer is "yes" if you shoot explicit pictures of yourself when you are under age and then post them on the net, you may be charged under child pornography laws.

She should not be charged with having child porn if all the photos are of herself.  We NEED to have the freedom to that regardless of our age.

Distribution of said photos should be an issue.  Otherwise, some Joe Porn will just pay 15y.o.s to take naughty pics of themselves and then distribute them via internet.  Not quite like, but reminds me of drug distributors using minors because they get less jail time.

Jessalyn wrote:

I'm not offended by nudity, I'm just trying to give you some friendly advice to keep your thread open. That's all. It's MM's rules, not mine.

You should be a moderator

StudioSeventeen wrote:

You should be a moderator

Geeze... I thought she was! :-o

StudioSeventeen wrote:

You should be a moderator

lol, I wouldn't want the responsibility. I just try to help people out to be nice, that's all.

StudioSeventeen wrote:

Your kidding.  You allow male models NUDE holding their crotch or worse as their avatar photo and that shows up on the MM  main page for all the world to see including non members or minors.

I agree there should be no porn, but if you are going to clean it up, clean it ALL up.

Baby steps man, baby steps!!

Jessalyn wrote:
obviously you didn't read any of my other posts. I merely let the OP know that it was against the rules in case they didn't know so that their thread did not get locked and they could keep going with the discussion.

Actually, I thought you were doing him a favor since he aparently didn't know the rules.  Having changed his post quickly, he will not now be getting a message from the mods.

Im'age NY (INY) wrote:

Geeze... I thought she was! :-o

Aaron S wrote:

And I, for one...and overjoyed that the Justice League is here to save us from any possible wrongdoing.

Or the Anti-justice league who is here to claim any attempt to help out somehow trods on their right to be rude, crude, and disruptive.

Luminos wrote:

Or the Anti-justice league who is here to claim any attempt to help out somehow trods on their right to be rude, crude, and disruptive.

Can't have superheroes without supervillians.

Monica Jay wrote:
What happens to the guys that she sent the pictures to? What if she lied and said she was 18? Would they still get charged with possession of child pornography?

Quite possibly.  They might use the pics as an excuse to get a search warrant where they might very well have found other inappropriate pictures.

Aaron S wrote:

Can't have superheroes without supervillians.

If that's the way you see things, and yourself.

But it's a bit childish.  What are you, eight years old?

Luminos wrote:

If that's the way you see things, and yourself.

But it's a bit childish.  What are you, eight years old?

Yes, that's exactly how I see myself. Infact, I'm going to get back to building my massive underground liar, hidden deep within the Paris Crypts. And then after that,  I am going to mastermind a plan to speed up the revolution of the earth. Thus, making all weeks only 5 days long and destroying weekends!