Court Reinstates Proof-of-Age Requirement For Nude Ads 267
arbitraryaardvark writes "An Ohio swinger's magazine objects to keeping proof on file that its advertisers are over 18. I reported here in 2007 that the 6th circuit struck down U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 as a First Amendment violation. The full 6th circuit has now overturned that ruling. The case might continue to the Supreme Court. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports."
Re:oblig. (Score:5, Funny)
It's a swingers' magazine. Do you have any idea what swingers look like? Trust me... the lack of pictures is a plus.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Funny)
What is the purpose of government?
I always thought it was to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
But I could be wrong.
Idea... (Score:3, Funny)
Require a license number in really small print in the lower right corner on published pornographic pictures, with the actors' license number(s). And require them to be licensed. If anyone has any questions right there's the number and look it up. If the actor looks like the pic on file well then ok. If it doesn't have a number or if they're obviously not the same person, go after the publisher for consent. Problem solved.
Re:Idea... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Idea... (Score:5, Funny)
Yep. There is a bright future in governmental service for that gentleman.
Re:Any model? (Score:4, Funny)
it's pretty implicit if not entirely explicit (no pun intended) under this topic heading that we're talking about nude models. I am stupider for reading your comment.
Re:Picture Collectors (Score:2, Funny)
i'd hit it.
Re:SOP (Score:5, Funny)
3 to 5 years jail time.
Re:SOP (Score:5, Funny)
Re:SOP (Score:3, Funny)
I think the standard approach for representation of age is a banner along the lines "BARELY LEGAL TEENS! These hot bitches turned 18 three weeks ago, and now they're ready to party!"