Hi. I had asked this in RAME a while back but it's really dead so I never got an answer. I frequent some newsgroups that basically have pics from site like MetArt, Hegre Archives, Galitsin News, JustTeenSite.com, and stuff along those lines. Basically it's just nudes, but there might be the occassional softcore set. I know that the bigger stuff like MetArt is legit, but should I worry if I look at or download these pics? Sometimes the girls look like their legality is questionable. I'm kinda unsure of the law in situations like this. Can anyone help me out? If you wanna check out the NG's, here's a list of them:
In the aftermath of Traci Lords, some local prosecutors went after people who owned tapes of movies she was in. Nobody bought those movies because she was underaged - nobody knew (including those in the industry that had to deal with the law). Many of those people lost and ended up in prison. So lack of knowledge is no defence, apparently. I have no idea if there is more recent case law that brightens the outlook. On the bright side, such investigations on the 'net side go after those who go to sites that explicitly provide pictures of the underaged.
My best guess is that they are legal, but I'm not positive. Some 18yo girls could pass for 21, but others look like they are 15-16. Since most teen sites have photos from the photographers you mention, and the photographers are willing to attach their names to these, I would think they are legal.It seems sometimes like they are walking a fine line by seeking out 18yo girls who don't look 18. However, the best advice I can give is if you feel uncomfortable about these photos, then stay away.
...very good advice IMHO....however, & this is all anecdotal, heard a very interesting interview with the techie guy that the British police use to delve into the hard-drives of child porn pervert scum....what makes for a successful prosecution in the UK, he said, was evidence that images were/are being managed - organised into directories, hidden & all that....seemed to suggest that traces of questionable images that might remain on a hard-drive would not necessarily get you into trouble, if the techie diagnosis showed a very brief life on the HD and no attempts to catalogue/manage images....
...on the other hand, I've surfed all over the www for best part of ten years looking for porn, and have never stumbled upon or inadvertently viewed anything that looked like kiddie porn...seems to me you need to make quite an effort to find the really questionable....
I would say that all the sites you mentioned are completely legal. I while back i saw some Galitsin pics and wondered myself but found his website and i'm pretty sure its ok. Alot of sites deliberatly choose young looking models. If i can't trust the 2257 stuff at the bottom of page then i don't see what more i can do.
I was thinking that about the 2257, too. I've checked some of the sites and seen that they have the USC 2257 certification thing on their page. Someone on RAME (i think the only person who repsonded to my inquiry) said that the 2257 only dealt with hardcore stuff with people 18+. Like, if a site had a nude of a girl, the 2257 wouldn't matter because it's not showing anything hardcore with the girl. That's the grey area that I'm noticing....99% of these pics are just nudes with no softcore or hardcore action going on. So in situations like that, is the 2257 useless to show whether or not you're in danger while looking at that particular site? They've got some newsgroups that, in their FAQ, says that nudes down to the age of 16 are ok. These are also the sickos who are downloading "model sets" of 13 year olds in bikinis and shit like that. That creeped me the fuck out so I unsubscribed from that shit. The pics I'm talking about are just the basics of nude girls that look 18. I'm just confused about the whole thing and figured some of you could shed some light on it. Thanks to everybody that already responded.
I see what you mean about the 2257 requirements. I was meaning these statements.Newsgroups are less controlled though and may have no 2257 stuff (if theres no tags or watermarks n pictures to tie them to a site).
I think that in the US if 2257 is not required then it doesn't qualify as child porn legally as it is'nt sex or sexual - just nudity. But that's just legally speaking of course. Other countries have different age limits and definitions of what indecent is.
ok cool. That's why I was checking the 2257's just in case there ever was any discrepencies or anything. I'm not gonna download anything without watermarks, either. The good thing I guess is that these are major sites so if something wasn't legal, I'm sure it would have surfaced itself prior to now. Thanks for the help.
Hi,take a guess why a lot of people stoped getting alt.binaries.pictures.* areas all together. Because some stupid fucks flooded them with contend that wasn´t supposed to be up there. Or how would you react if you were looking for {let´s say} cars and you would be constandly flooded with pics of ships
Posted - Jul 26 2006 : 5:08AM
