18 Usc 2257?

[Donkey Boy]

First off, let me say that I find the notion of anything close to child/kiddie porn absolutely disgusting and think anyone who is into that kind of shit should have their twisted brains dislodged by a 12 ga. shotgun blast.

Recently, I've heard some stuff about people being detained in Canadian and US Customs, jailed, computers confiscated, IP addresses flagged, etc., I've started to pay a lot more attention to whether or not a site displays the 18 USC 2257 Record Keeping noticification.

Basically it states that everyone who appears in any visual depiction of actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct appearing in the website was over the age of eighteen years at the time of the creation.

I've noticed some rather common ones DON'T always have the notice --MetArt, and Femjoy to name a couple.

I've also noticed that many sites that have the word "teens" in the link do not display a 2257 notice.

I make it a point to not open any content on those sites and leave them immediately when I don't see it.

Do you still look at a site without the 18 USC 2257 notice?

 

[StigHelmer]

who cares dude be gangster

j/k


...honestly I thought it was more about protecting the site than the end user. You probably have nothing to worry about. I have a feeling those certain IPs had it coming...

 

[Iamforever]

i dont need to worry about this. as the porn i do look at will never be confused for illegal material.

 

[Vanilla Bear]

I dont need to worry either.
The porn I look at is also here at free1s so it cant be illegal!

 

[Donkey Boy]

Re: 18 USC 2257?

Yeah, I should have added that in two of the instances I know details of it was definitely illegal kiddie porn -- the kind where there is NO doubt in anyone's mind. Just sick, sick, sick.

They were both co-workers of people I know.

One was arrested at work. He had a history of chatting with young girls online. The other was detained by US Customs b/c his passport had been flagged due to his paying for sites with illegal material on them. Something else about his name (along with several thousand others) being turned over by the site as part of a plea-bargain with the government.

Don't know if either had stuff on their computers but I wouldn't be surprised. Makes ya' think though....who would the burden of proof be on?

 

[Iamforever]

the burden of proof should be on the site and its owner. but sadly, its all on the user. they knowingly sought this shit out, and now they get a cell for their troubles. me? i wont lose sleep over a pedophile losing his life.

 

[Jagger69]

I may be naive or out of touch but I had never heard of this until now. I do not frequent questionable websites as far as age of consent goes so it really isn't an issue with me....I guess???

 

[sputnikgirl]

Law enforcement officials shouldn't be targeting those who don't look for the compliance statement. Instead, they should be targeting the sites that try to get around the law, and the users who seek them out on a consistent basis. For example, there was a site featured on 20/20 that depicted 7-15 year olds dressed provactively. Provactively meaning stripper heels, bikinis, etc. but they can't prosecute those who visit the sites, because the kids aren't actually nude. They are posing with the clothes on, and not in an overtly sexual manner, so nothing can be done. Sites like these and the people that use them should be targeted, not those who visit the more mainstream sites like MetArt.

Also there's a question of intent. Some people prefer a natural-bodied, small-breasted woman. Yet, since mainstream porn is somewhat obsessed with the unnatural body (huge fake tits, collagen lips, etc), it appears some of the only places to find that sort of woman (without buying dvds) are on sites whose gimmick is "young girls, lolitas," etc. Should someone be considered a pedophile because of their aesthetic choices? I personally like petite women with natural bodies, and would be offended if someone considered me a pedophile simply because of my aesthetic choice.

 

[nothingandless]

mi not so worried about it, but have stumbled across things that i don't think are "legal"
i just exit the site immediatly. i usually stick to searching known models, women that have posed for playboy, penthouse, mayfair, etc.
i do however like metart, hegre, galistin galleries as well. i can't imagine they'd be breaking the law, they have a huge subscriber base.
the most questionable of the models i do search for would be kettydreams or ariel rebel.
petite girls happen to look younger in the glamour biz, but the models i look at all look like adults, so im not really worried. i will keep it in mind though.

 

[max0rz]

femjoy & metart do actually have the notices.

they're listed under the legal options on the sites.

@ the Usc thingy, I do recall giving it a passing glance back in the day, & taking stock of it's main points, although I soon forgot about it.

Unless I see it on the site, (a lot of em have it in clear view, so it's hard to miss) I don't really think about it.

although, I guess the smart thing to do, would prolly be to make it an issue to check, lol.

 

[BNF]

My post from the last time this came up:

Most legal sites must have a compliance. It reads:

CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS - U.S.C. TITLE 18, SECTION 2257 COMPLIANCE

All models, actors, actresses and other persons that appear in any visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct appearing or otherwise contained in this Website were over the age of eighteen years at the time of the creation of such depictions. With respect to all visual depictions displayed on this website, whether of actual sexually explicit conduct, simulated sexual content or otherwise, all persons in said visual depictions were at least 18 years of age when said visual depictions were created. The owners and operators of this Website are not the primary producer (as that term is defined in 18 USC section 2257) of any of the visual content contained in the Website. The original records required pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 for all materials contained in the website are kept by the following Custodian of Records:

On the bottom of the home page (usually), you will find a link called "18 U.S.C. 2257" and that is, a guarantee, as much as possible anyway, that the site is legal.


Remember that TGPs are businesses, not really so different that other web merchants. No TGP is going to knowingly host illegal content.

----

Closed.