Comments on: Porn Set Free: Age Record Keeping Deemed Unconstitutional

By: Adult hub

Adult hub — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:39:50 +0000

Porn is great awesome article!

By: OnderTHOR

OnderTHOR — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 08:07:03 +0000

Now its time to see the reality about porn in dreams.. the meaning everthing;

By: cambalkon

cambalkon — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:10:21 +0000

getting sick of the porn 2.0 tube frenzy

By: free

free — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:31:17 +0000

ersonally im getting sick of the porn 2.0 tube frenzy

By: cam

cam — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:17:33 +0000

Owell. Interesting thread none the less.

By: etek6

etek6 — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 22:55:43 +0000

Interesting thread none the less.

By: Jacob M.

Jacob M. — Sat, 30 May 2009 05:17:58 +0000

haha old thread got bumped.

Personally im getting sick of the porn 2.0 tube frenzy. :/

Im actually going back to sites like boobsdd.com

Just clean old boobs and no bullshit.

Owell. Interesting thread none the less.

By: fre

fre — Tue, 26 May 2009 19:38:17 +0000

thanks man n!

By: su deposu

su deposu — Tue, 26 May 2009 13:06:53 +0000

thanks man nice share.

By: Dizi İzle

Dizi İzle — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 21:28:16 +0000

Thanx for admin

By: Shone

Shone — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:39:40 +0000

Shonecity.com Shones

By: MSN Sözleri

MSN Sözleri — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:44:37 +0000

thanks

By: Porn

Porn — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 16:52:14 +0000

internet only for porn

By: jbffed

jbffed — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:30:40 +0000

Thank goodness the courts seem to have made the right decision regarding Porn 2.0 sites like YouPorn and http://www.PornHub.com (a new, first-rate entry into the field). These sites represent a new level of social networking and it is time that the “establishement” realizes that sex is not inherently dirty. Long live Porn 2.0

By: Jay

Jay — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:54:33 +0000

This is great news for owners of social networks like myself!

MyFreeImplants.com is not a porn site but we could have been subjected to new 2257 regulation because we have user generated content that includes partial nudity. For us to verify the age of the tens of thousands of members seeking boob jobs would be impossible.

By: Frisson

Frisson — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 02:53:37 +0000

I look forward to the day when 2257 is dead and buried. As a responsible photographer I check EVERY models ID to ensure he/she is over the legal age. The laws are already in place to punish me if I make a poor judgment call.

Child pornographers trade among themselves or base themselves abroad. 2257 was just a means used by the far right to choke the adult industry plus any other works they considered to be undesirable.

Frisson
PS. Peter, you need to learn about your country’s law making process
PPS. Jared, 2257 has nothing to do with being able to view adult material

By: cool hood

cool hood — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:00:31 +0000

I know the guy who made that cool hooded sweatshirt!

By: MyFreeImplants.com

MyFreeImplants.com — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:45:48 +0000

That’s a huge relief! Even though we aren’t a porn company per say, we do have a sexually charge atmosphere since we are in the business of free boob jobs.

By: Vik

Vik — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:08:04 +0000

Duncan:

Your post may give a false sense of security to porn website operators located outside of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Note that the ruling comes from Court of Appeals for the Sixt Circuit, not the U.S. Supreme Court. Thus, it may not be followed by the other circuits.

Thanks!

By: Support this story on Stirrdup

Support this story on Stirrdup — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:06:18 +0000

Porn Set Free: Age Record Keeping Deemed Unconstitutional…

This story has been submitted to Stirrdup. Your support can help it become hot….

By: bernie

bernie — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:06:03 +0000

Guys, all this does is release the actual website OWNERS, who have purchased content from a photographer, videographer etc, from having to maintain records of the models used on all content in his own office. The content producer him or herself still has to have all records pertaining to the model’s age and identity ready for inspection.

The big problem with 2257 is that any perv who obsessed on a model could simply purchase her photoset from a content provider and get her real name, real address etc., and go pay her a visit.

By: Darklady

Darklady — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:01:35 +0000

The requirements went far beyond simply asking for photo copies of people’s ID. They required two pieces of ID, they had to be cross-indexed (imagine the complexity if you shoot a lot of content), the copies had to be crisp and easily readable (try that after a few photo copies), a notice had to be on the product including the producers office address (which for most of us is our home address), and producers had to keep regular business hours so inspections could take place (again, impossible if you work from home, especially if you have a ‘day job’ or ever want to run an errand, etc.).

Real child porn producers don’t keep this kind of information around and so many models are obviously over age, so the sole reason for this law has been to fuck with the porn industry.

Harshest of all was that the law was going to be expanded. Even if you just buy an image from someone who shot it, you were going to be required to have all this information (thus adding to the clarity of photo copy issue) AND they were demanding that it not only be kept in digital format but in print format. How many people have a warehouse at their convenience?

And keep in mind, this isn’t just about “porn.” If you shoot a nude, you’d better be prepared to have this information in order. Social networking sites were possibly going to be included, as well. It was a witch hunt, pure and simple; an attempt to appease the Far Right while appearing rational to the average person who wasn’t following the details of the law and its nearly impossible requirements.

By: Jared White

Jared White — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:31:58 +0000

Great, let’s make it even easier for kids to fake their ID and get access to smut without fear of further checkup by law enforcement. Way to go! After all, soldiers fought and died to secure our freedom so we could look at naughty bits online.

And thus the pornification of America continues…

By: steve Ballmer

steve Ballmer — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:35:45 +0000

It’s right there in the 32nd admendment, “Children shall have the right to as much perversion as they can stand”, is that what the judges were reading?
http://fakestev...er.blogspot.com

By: VIPfreeporn

VIPfreeporn — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:04:41 +0000

Definitely good news for adult website owners. As long as it doesn’t lead to underage people getting involved in the xxx industry that is…

This clarifies some questions surrounding content purshasing etc. moving forward. Definitely a positive.