MichaelHaynes wrote:
Then there is the definition of a child molester in and of itself. Here in Virginia, I had better not touch anyone under 18. But in Ohio, South Carolina and Hawaii I can legally have intercourse with a 14 year old and not be a child molester. Something like 18 other states have the age of consent at 16. A few are at 17. A psychologist will cite child sexual obsession (medically) in a case where the child has not developed sexual organs.

Ok...one quick addendum...I just learned that Hawaii recently changed the age of consent to 16...temporarily. In a couple years it rolls back to 14. They couldn;t get enough public support to permanently raise the age to 16, so the legislature settled upon a compromise of a law with a sunset clause.

Good luck fighting the swimsuit thing. If a state cannot even raise the age for sex, what chance does a swimsuit protest have?

Jade Jorarni wrote:
(Yes I read the whole 9 pages...why? I was bored)

My two cents anyway:

I know that the site is considered legal, but with all you MMer's outraged and such, why hasn't anyone body suggested writing to good ol' Oprah.

Even though it has been stated for a number of reasons that nothing can be done about it.

Everybody knows that American moms look at Oprah like GOD and she and her team of supermoms (and dads) will go up against it... to at the very least raise awareness.

Maybe she would spotlight the issue being smart enough not to give out the site names to help the daily hits of the site go up ... but to make people rally up against the issue of child erotica as a whole not this one specific site.

If anyone can do it... O can!

LOL

I could have imagined that there were sites like this out... I am sure there are other sites out even worse which I don't care to see. I mean it's the internet.

No, those girls shouldn't be dressing like that at such a young age; thats a given. It's just innapproiate in a moral sense.


Oh and by the way, to the poster worried about the site trafficing hits going up:
The number of hits that site has on a daily basis is probably in the thousands...millions maybe (This is a sick world we live in). Unless the posters here on MM were visiting it multiple times and making a habit out of it (which no one really has... since everyone was sickened by it so much), I doubt 100 people who may have clicked it will boost the site in any major way.

Has been done before, all it does is make the whole of us look bad. You know bad PR. Its simple I seen nothing illegal at all in those images, although I disagree with them I think less harm done to just leave them alone. Kind of like the billions spent on the so called drug war that was lost long ago.

If you think those were bad, I have stumbled across much worse while scanning various teen model sites with my own daughter, I was helping her look at site designs for her own site, and we were both sickened.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
the kids and adults are much more interested in music than they are in modeling!  Trust me, I know by how fast the music profile is growing vs. my modeling one!

Not according to the unsolicited emails I get on there from females of all ages asking me how much doing pictures costs. I have received emails from girls as young as 10-12.

MichaelHaynes wrote:

Show me such a conviction that was upheld upon appeal....

All I know is I have seen convictions. I never said anything about appeals,lol.But I have seen convictions. And overturned or not, the stinga sticks forever.

MichaelHaynes wrote:
The key phrases in 2257 is sexually explicit and sexually exploitive. The Supreme Court has already determined that nudity, and images of nudity, in and of itself, does not constitute sexually explicit and sexually exploitive imagery.

Nudity doesn't but those fucking sick pictures do. Naked children are beautiful and cute. I don't know how you people don't (those of you that don't) see the difference.

Let me quote one of the more reasonable responses to those pictures from this thread:

Fred MIller wrote:
OK that is some really sick shit!  I am not the most conservative person around and I may have some, hmmm liberated ideas about sex and yes I am male and no I do not have any children.  But that is really sick shit...a playground for pedophiles.  What the F... are they thinking.  Most of those kids are babies!  What twisted MF thought that this was ok?  Who...who would let there child do this?  Man...I have lost the last ounce of hope for this country.  If those parents can't understand why that is so twisted and sick....  Wow...I just don't believe that shit!!

I wish I could be as eloquent about the issue as Fred is. I do have two daughters who are legal adults now. I changed their diapers, wiped their vomit, took them to the emergency room when they had a 105 fever, slept on the floor by their bed when they were really sick, and worried sick about them. I also felt their little arms around my neck and felt their trust that no matter what I would protect them from everything.  From my experience I know that those fucking sick pictures are not what 9- or 11-year old girls are about. I just hope that those of you who try to minimize or are resigned to how sick those pictures are, I just hope that you are doing this because you don’t know what those beautiful little creatures are about. It takes more than just seeing Britney Spears on TV to make those poor kids do those things - there must be really sick parents involved. I think everyone needs to see this and get outraged. This needs to stop and those parents that allow this to happen need to have their kids taken away from them. That includes the kid beauty pageant victims.

I'm a nonviolent person but ... I guess it's not allowed to make threats on this forum so I'll just get up from the computer and do something else.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

Not according to the unsolicited emails I get on there from females of all ages asking me how much doing pictures costs. I have received emails from girls as young as 10-12.

Ray, I started two profiles at nearly the same time.  One is for the Internet Model Club, a modeling website of mine, and the other is Backstage411.  There is twice the number of "friends" requests for the music profile than the modeling one.  Quite frankly, the fan base for music is by far larger than the fan base for models.  Don't believe me?  Check the numbers of searches done, the top searches are nearly always celebrity types like Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, etc. etc. ... as far as "hits" ... it's also the music websites that are twice as popular as any model websites.  The music industry is getting a wake up call from the fact that E-labels are here to stay.  Indy labels and self published musicians are making more money online than they ever did in the past because of the Internet! 

Let me ask you one question Ray, why do you think that MySpace has a special search function for "Music" on the website?   There are hundreds of thousands of bands on there!  Reality Music talent search shows like American Idol, and Star search (going way back!)  There are some great websites for photographers of the music genera. Music/concert photographers are better organized than us "model" shooters!  That is why I'm going to do something to shake us all up!  LOL  The cool thing is that the plans for organization of a music website goes parallel to my plans for the model website.

My music photography is my crown jewel of my most treasured work.  Shooting models is fun and does pay, but nothing close to what I get from shooting musicians!  I always say that model shooting makes a quick $ for me, but the music industry is my retirement fund!

Gregory Garecki wrote:

MichaelHaynes wrote:
The key phrases in 2257 is sexually explicit and sexually exploitive. The Supreme Court has already determined that nudity, and images of nudity, in and of itself, does not constitute sexually explicit and sexually exploitive imagery.

Nudity doesn't but those fucking sick pictures do. Naked children are beautiful and cute. I don't know how you people don't (those of you that don't) see the difference.

Let me quote one of the more reasonable responses to those pictures from this thread:


I wish I could be as eloquent about the issue as Fred is. I do have two daughters who are legal adults now. I changed their diapers, wiped their vomit, took them to the emergency room when they had a 105 fever, slept on the floor by their bed when they were really sick, and worried sick about them. I also felt their little arms around my neck and felt their trust that no matter what I would protect them from everything.  From my experience I know that those fucking sick pictures are not what 9- or 11-year old girls are about. I just hope that those of you who try to minimize or are resigned to how sick those pictures are, I just hope that you are doing this because you don’t know what those beautiful little creatures are about. It takes more than just seeing Britney Spears on TV to make those poor kids do those things - there must be really sick parents involved. I think everyone needs to see this and get outraged. This needs to stop and those parents that allow this to happen need to have their kids taken away from them. That includes the kid beauty pageant victims.

I'm a nonviolent person but ... I guess it's not allowed to make threats on this forum so I'll just get up from the computer and do something else.

Yeah...I looked at your portfolio. You have some pictures on there that would get you beheaded in certain parts of the world. Not a threat...a fact.

There was a time in this country where you, yes you, would get whipped in public because you allowed your wife to leave the house showing her ankles. Oh my gosh, what a sicko you are, allowing your wife to show obscene skin. Yet at the same time, poor households thought nothing of their prepubescent children running around in the buff. Heck, still happens today in the good old U S of A.

And what about those sick, sick, sick Europeans. Majorca, South of France, Sweden. Letting their kids run around topless on the beach. In full view of *gasp* everyone.

You know...someone makes those outfits in those sizes for those children on the website. You going to go after the manufacturers next?

"Sick" is in the eye of the beholder. One might consider you 'sick' because you, and the majority of the posters, consider those images sexually explicit. You telling me that you saw a minor posing for a photograph and immediately sexual thoughts sprung into your head? Where others see art and entertainment, you saw sex?

See how open to interpretation this matter is?

I have concluded that none of you, protesting loudly so that the world can see that you are 'outraged' so that none may mistakenly judge your silence for concent and acceptance, have the foggiest idea what sexual predation really is.

Sexual predation of minors is pathological and very, very specific. A pedophile does not see a naked child or nearly naked child and conclude that he or she must have that child. They tend to want a specific type of child, one that fits the model and mold of their taste and profile. Covering your child, head to toe, in sack cloh will not make a difference.

And you Jon Bonet fans: Her parents were making her up like a little adult. Anethemia to a pedophile. Wouldn;t touch her with a ten foot pole.

Most of the very bad legislation in this country was triggered by masses of people who were upset about something but knew absolutely nothing about the issue at hand.

Think specifically about this: How would you word your legislation? Would it now become illegal for a photographer to be hired for a birthday party that is a pool party?

Today in some states you have 16 year old boys and girls on sex offender lists for life because they had sex with their fifteen or sixteen year old boyfriend or girlfriend. Forget sex, petting is illegal in many states - unlwaful sexual contact - even amoung teenagers. That has resulted in some states passing very slippery laws like a person cannot be more than twwo years older than their minor mate of consenting age. Heck, there are some states with sliding scales of consent. A sixteen year old is mmature enough to consent to sex with an 18 year old but not a nineteen year old, etc.

So you are at a pool party. Innocent enough, photographing all the kids playing together. Several girls get into a group hug, as teens will do, psoe off their bodies and a couple of the girls kiss each other on the cheek or elsewhere playfully. Would you have that photographer instantly become a felon and a sex offender? Aw heck, forget even the photo, he saw it. Not reporting the antics would now make him participatory in contributing to the deliquency of a minor.

So, we become even more specific in our definition, excepting pool parties, beaches, etc. So we say what is illegal is a shoot done with girls posing in such and such a manner (how would you specifically label the poses to separate them from say, dancing) for the explicit purpose of sale or distribution. Oh oh....problems still! Her hand was touching her hip and her hip was cocked at just slightly too much of an angle. 8 degrees tilt instead of the max of 7 degrees.

What is sexually suggestive is just too open for interpretation. You say it should be obvious? To whom and by what standards? Come on...someone give us language that would specifically define the offending activities and stand up to a constitutional test. Bet you can't do it.

Women fought so long in this country to have equality and the ability to express themselves in what they wear. Now, suddenly, we are telling them to un-burn their bras.

Have you ever looked at indecent exposure laws from state to state? Some go by a percentage of mammary flesh showing. Some call it obscene if any part of the areola is visible. So, the swelling that forms the female breast is not obscne, but the tip of the breast is. Yet the male breast, from areola to nipple is fair game for veiwing. So...are your rules going to be the same for boys as for girls in how they pose? And what they wear to pose?

In the fifties the Motion Picture Association of America used a ruler to measure cleavage to determine whether or not a picture was acceptable for release. Say good bye, once again, to teen beach movies about young love blooming.

Jennifer Connelly, at age fourteen, stripped down in a movie, erotically showing her butt, to entice a teen boy after dancing about the room doing ballet. Anyone with a copy of Once Upon a Time in America had better dump that trashy piece of R-rated porn.

Which reminds me...those children are not dressing like porn stars/. Porn stas do not dress like that. Pop stars do.

If anyone thinks kids are not anxious to model, walk down Virginia Beach one day with a camera bag over your shoulder. Much easier pickings there on the beach for a pedophile than at home viewing the internet.

Americans are such knee jerk reactionists. We murder hundreds of people every day across the country but percieved suggested attempts at procreation pisses us off. Get real people and stop making paranoid nervous wrecks out of your kids.

Xavier Ford wrote:
Well first of all, to the person who started this announcement. All you're doing is just spreading the word that there is another child porno site out there. And you even tried to put up a link! Especially on a site like model mayhem, where it's full of perverted freelance photographers who go crazy over nude photos. Ridiculous.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there were no naked children to be seen.  The website link was to a banner page to websites that are non nude displays of children.  I personally don't care for it, but I understand that it is legal.

Xavier Ford wrote:
Especially on a site like model mayhem, where it's full of perverted freelance photographers who go crazy over nude photos. Ridiculous.

I and the rest of the free lance photographers everywhere do not take kindly to those who think a photographer is a pervert because he/she is a freelancer because he/she does not want to be owned by an agency.

How would you and other models feel if photographers thought all models who were not signed by an agency were some negative descriptive term,,,,,,,,,,pervert, flake, slacker,etc.?

MichaelHaynes wrote:
What is sexually suggestive is just too open for interpretation. You say it should be obvious? To whom and by what standards? Come on...someone give us language that would specifically define the offending activities and stand up to a constitutional test. Bet you can't do it.

I wunder if u could do a pay site that had young girls like licking and fondling sex toys if they were fully clothed and not putting them anyplace other than like their mouths and stuff. And u're right suggestiv poses is not "explicit" is it? What if u did pictures of 13 year old girls in the kneeling with their butt sticking up ooh-ooh pose and so on? I wonder if the ACLU would send lawyers to help me when the feds kicked my door in. I bet I could make a sh*tload of dough but it'd be such a pain; bussing tables is a much more honorable profession.

GWC!

MichaelHaynes wrote:
Sexual predation of minors is pathological and very, very specific.

Technically, I think you would have to kill and eat the child to fall under that classification.  Hijacking words that mean something else is common for people trying to present an activity with the worst possible visualization.  The word molester used to be the accepted term. 

Another common strategy is to highlight the worst cases, of which there are very few, and then lump all cases together as if they were equal.  That's why you have "registered sex offenders" who did nothing more than get caught peeing in an alley.

Along those lines, an offender is now commonly referred to as a pedophile whenever the victim is under the age of consent.

Eventually, the dictionary is rewritten to adapt to the popular (mis)use of the words, but by that time, the rhetoric has moved on to yet a new level of distortion.

GWC wrote:

What if u did pictures of 13 year old girls in the kneeling with their butt sticking up ooh-ooh pose and so on? I wonder if the ACLU would send lawyers to help me when the feds kicked my door in. I bet I could make a sh*tload of dough but it'd be such a pain; bussing tables is a much more honorable profession.

GWC!

Uh...I have taken such pictures. Minors were doing that in the middle of the street to calypso music. Hands spread on the ground before them, butt sticking up in the air and wagging wildly and sometimes with guys pumping behind them. The girls were wearing carnival costumes much more revealing than any bathing suit or lengerie.  I took those pictures at three carnivals...in Miami, in Atlanta and in New York City. Cops were all about lining the parade route and parents were more than happy to buy prints of their kids doing whatever they call that. But it was called dancing or tramping and, while you and I might only do such activity in a locked, dark bedroom, there were kids as young as three or four running the range to adulthood doing this right in front of thousands of people, network television, reporters and photographers. More than put the Lambada to shame.

We complain about the website, but the New York Post has published such pictures while covering the New York Carnival!

Jade Jorarni wrote:
Does anyone know what the record here for longest thread where posters actually stayed on the original topic is?

I stayed on topic, I said that the site was sick, as it is, sorry I had to smack Melvin down at the same time, when I see someone like that even type my name I cringe *shudders*

aenux wrote:
I expressed how I found the site to be inappropriate. I received a message back from Google saying that they had no record of the site in question, so someone else must have complained as well.

Not necessarily. Google and the other big search engines have these things called spiders, they go out on the web and get web urls and take them back to google and put them in their search database. Google does not pick and choose what is in their database. It is too big for someone to sit and police it like that. Besides, the site is not illegal. They are also very big on 1st ammendment rights,too. And be careful , the next thing you know MM and OMP and such might be gone someday just because someone didnt like the sites.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
Not necessarily. Google and the other big search engines have these things called spiders, they go out on the web and get web urls and take them back to google and put them in their search database. Google does not pick and choose what is in their database. It is too big for someone to sit and police it like that.

All I said was that I had sent a message to Google. And that due to the response I received that someone had already sent in a message to them.

Upon further reading I found that the notice they received about the site was quite awhile ago and they had only now gotten around to removing the site.

"Re:
On November 30, 2005 Google received notice of a list of sites that contain child pornography. We removed these sites and reported the violation to NCMEC."

By sending in a complaint to Google, people are simply expressing what they believe. If nothing happens, then so be it.

aenux wrote:
After reading this thread and checking out the site, I did a quick search on Google to see if it was accessible though the search engine - which it was. I then wrote a complaint to Google. In this complaint I expressed how I found the site to be inappropriate. I received a message back from Google saying that they had no record of the site in question, so someone else must have complained as well. Thus the site is not longer directly accessible though Google. Hopefully by the site no longer being directly listed on Google it may have some impact.

Here is a portion of the e-mail I received from Google.

"Thank you for your note. We'd like to help you resolve this situation, but we're unable to reproduce it. You can find the search results that we received at the following link:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& … models.com

If you are still finding this site in our search results, please send us the URL of the Google search results page on which it appears so we can investigate. To do so, please follow these steps:....."

Also, attached is the response that was listed when I just now searched for the site.
“Sorry, no information is available for the URL childsupermodels.com
·    Find web pages from the site childsupermodels.com

·    Find web pages that contain the term "childsupermodels.com"
In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org�

Yuh know...I think Google is yanking your chain. I just searched 9:23 a.m. EST, May 30, 2006 "child super models" and got 25,100,100 hits:
http://www.google.com/search?q=child+su … S:official

and "childsupermodels" and got 43,000 hits.
http://www.google.com/search?q=child+su … S:official

Searching the website: http://www.childsupermodels.com does bring up their notice about no information being available for that domain...but who searches a website domain through google? If one knows the name of the website, they go directly there. So, one neat little complaint, one removed domain name, zero net effect but some little individual feels they did their civic duty as a whiny American and can feel good about themselves for the next 24 hours. Bravo!

So...Google removed the site name/url but cannot possibly remove all the cross referenced links. Removing the url will have absolutely no effect. Sorry.

Now, enter a name with a dash and then the word 'model', such as 'nina-model' into Google and guess what? Up comes this:
"preteen girl models lilamber.com pre-teen girl model teen preteen ...
pre-teen girl model teen travel pics preteen life style Preteen fashion teen fashion childrens travel video's vhs tapes, child vacation video's.
www.nina-model.com/"
Which takes you right back to, yup, you guessed it... a link to childsupermodels.com.

So, why don't you complain again and see if Google can remove every name in the world that a young girl might possibly possess.

aenux wrote:
Well forgive me for trying. o_0

All I did was voice my concern over someting I found to be innapropriate.

There are many websites that are "inapropriate" ... millions of them.  But the website with all those banners leads to many more sites.  As sick and disgusting as many find it, what you find "inapropriate" is not illegal.  It's the REAL child porn sites that the FBI is trying to shut down.

photog2b wrote:

Where in any of my comments can you reason that I "seem to be accepting sites like this"?   I didn't post the URL, you did.  I didn't contribute to more traffic on the site, you did. 

Tell you what, go back to thiat site in a month.  If it's gone, I'll send you $100 and my apologies.  Otherwise, I don't think good judgement was used in posting the URL.

I have to agree with you on this one.  Honestly, if the people commenting on this really did not know about this until you read this link on MM then shame on you.  How can you honestly act like you are so concerned and so offended by this but have been blind to it until now.  I agree sending more people to this site only promotes it more STOP!  But, shame on you for not knowing about this and trying to do something about it years ago.  This is not new fellow photg's.

PS
You didn't need to add the link just to talk about the subject.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

I have seen this site before and have seen the photographer on OMP. I personally see nothing provocative about anything on his site. It looks like normal shots to me. No provocative poses, no see through stuff, no very skimpy stuff, no come do me expressions.

You gotta be kidding me.  I guarantee you if I ever caught my daughter wearing shorts like those she would be getting her ass whooped until the police came got me...  And the same goes any photographer that suggested or allowed it.

Gap INC. is not highing pre-teen models to wear that kind of stuff.  Is that something you would put in a model portfolio and circulate to all the agencies?

minutephotos wrote:

You gotta be kidding me.  I guarantee you if I ever caught my daughter wearing shorts like those she would be getting her ass whooped until the police came got me...  And the same goes any photographer that suggested or allowed it.

Gap INC. is not highing pre-teen models to wear that kind of stuff.  Is that something you would put in a model portfolio and circulate to all the agencies?

I am all for kicking some "perverted" ass of any dude who goes shooting my preteen daughter!  But is it legal?  The website we are dealing with is one that skates the laws ... barely, but it's NOT illegal in anyway.  Two, if I go kicking ass, I will be putting myself in trouble .. probably worth it at first, but it still wont slow down the profilation of these websites. 

Did you knwo that OMP has had a problem with REAL child porn sites being promoted from there in the past?  They have also had freaks like ... well I wont name him, but I had a furious phone conversation with a guy who shot pictures of girls in bikinis ... it was from one of the warmer States ... but his work looked EXACTLY as if he were running a daycare center and following the girls (some as young as 7 years old) around shooting them in candids.  He had a website which is history now, but his "work" had no merit in my opinion.  The Court of law ... well that's a different opinion.  But guess what?  Forget making more laws, it will take our rights away.  Instead, build an industry with standards that puts pressure on those doing it to change their own marketing and way they operate.

Lost Johnny wrote:
The thing about this is that no one is going to change there mind.  I have done a search of MM and there are plenty of 15/16 year old girls in very skimpy outfits.  The thing is that these things are relative.  Some might see a pretty girl in a string bikini as sexual, but not everyone.  Who has the right to say what a person can or can't wear?  If you really want to lose your lunch I can point you to a site that has been around for a long time.  Type in LS magazine and get your vomit bags out.  It is on something called, are you ready, "the adult underage network" or something similer, I would not have mentioned this but if you think "fresh faces" is bad you really have no idea.  Also type in brows female models 16 to 17 on MM and see if we should be casting stones.  You need a license to drive a car but not to be a parent.

Yes!  And it's REAL child porn that needs to get busted!  There ARE laws about it. The Child Super Model whatever from that link is not child porn no matter how distasteful it may seem.  I've mentioned enforcement of our laws, and that the FBI has their hands full as it is trying to track the stuff that is far more disgusting AND illegal than the link posted.

kT Imaging wrote:
This site has been around for a long time.  I think the authorities already know about it.  I would also caution MM's from going to this site, even to see what all the fuss is about.

Chances are it is being monitored by the Feds and it would be sad that one of us gets innocently caught up in this...

That is why as soon as I saw what it was, I got off quick. Good point.

kT Imaging wrote:
This site has been around for a long time.  I think the authorities already know about it.  I would also caution MM's from going to this site, even to see what all the fuss is about.

Chances are it is being monitored by the Feds and it would be sad that one of us gets innocently caught up in this...

That is why as soon as I saw what it was, I got off quick. Good point.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:

Victorias Secret has had models that young in catalogs and runway shows.

Lets not forgot the Calvin Klein ads.

Mary wrote:
I stayed on topic, I said that the site was sick, as it is, sorry I had to smack Melvin down at the same time, when I see someone like that even type my name I cringe *shudders*

I wasn't being sarcastic that time. I honestly was refering to the fact that the posters for the most part have stayed on topic.

minutephotos wrote:

You gotta be kidding me.  I guarantee you if I ever caught my daughter wearing shorts like those she would be getting her ass whooped until the police came got me...  And the same goes any photographer that suggested or allowed it.

Gap INC. is not highing pre-teen models to wear that kind of stuff.  Is that something you would put in a model portfolio and circulate to all the agencies?

That is you and your daughter, not me. And to clarify I that reply of mine that you ar quoting is not about the site the OP mentioned but a specific photographers website and OMP profile. I did not see anything provicative in his photographs. I have seen shots like that in catalogs. If you see something provocative in those images, I am not the one with a problem.

Travis Feisthamel Photo wrote:

Lets not forgot the Calvin Klein ads.

ESPECIALLY the CK ads, which show even more skin than the VC ads even.

kT Imaging wrote:
This site has been around for a long time.  I think the authorities already know about it.  I would also caution MM's from going to this site, even to see what all the fuss is about.

Chances are it is being monitored by the Feds and it would be sad that one of us gets innocently caught up in this...

Travis Feisthamel Photo wrote:
That is why as soon as I saw what it was, I got off quick. Good point.

Oh, you paranoid, paranoid people!

Good going, Ashcroft. He's got Ameircan's so afraid of accidentally becoming felons that they look over their shoulders at every turn, fearing the FBI.

Innocently caught up? Heck, you know what this thread was about and still went and looked. That shows intent to view the stuff. Bam. Go to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

Jeepers, creepers. The site is legal. It has been up since 1999 and has hundreds of girls on it. It has been reported to law enforcement left and right. The domain name owner is listed with internic, U.S. phone number and address. News articles have been written and broadcast about the site. We sit here, all of we good MMers, reporting the site, wasting valuable law enforcement time that could be better used going after real offenders.

As one FBI agent said a year ago: "We had to take agents off of terrorism investigations because Ashcroft wanted us to take a look at the internet porn industry. During the investigation, we found just one site not in compliance with the law, but had several dozen terrorist incidents."




A quick on-off. What are you afraid of? You think time matters to your computer cache? Oh...you went and cleared your cache. Did you remember to clear your event logs? You know, the multiple redundant diagnostic histories that windows runs in the back ground of everything you do on your computer?

You have until morning. Not many judges are going to issue the search warrant for your computer on a Sunday night.