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."
Picture Collectors (Score:5, Interesting)
The proof-of-age thing really hits picture collectors hard. For those pictures that do not have a site tag on them, if questioned, the collector must be able to come up with proof-of age. The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.' There are many models out there that are well above the age of consent that might raise suspicions.
Re:Picture Collectors (Score:3, Interesting)
The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.'
So, what about Lady Justice? Wasn't the model for that statue 12 or so?
Re:SOP (Score:5, Interesting)
The OP is correct, it's sensible advice. As a filmmaker and photographer I always do get forms signed and ID from models. It's extremely annoying to have to do that, but it's insurance nonetheless. Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity when it comes to anything sex-related.
Re:oblig. (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, a gf of mine was a swinger before she met me and she was pretty hot redhead. It was a rather unhealthy lifestyle for her, though. Her husband goaded her into it, only to discover the obvious: though they did sometimes swing in the sense of trading partners with another couple, it mostly meant that he stayed home while she dated (and had sex) a lot. I remember one time watching HGTV with her and she pointed out the attractive hostess was a swinger in Atlanta (where she'd live before meeting me).
There are a lot of lifestyles like that, where I believe it's possible to approach them in a way that's healthy but the reality is that they're usually a sign of major psychological or emotional problems. Eventually I had to break up with her because her problems made the relationship impossible.
By the way, the crazy sex wasn't as good as sex I've had with less crazy (but still experimental) women. One time she did something which was pretty annoying (riding *extremely* fast in cowgirl position) and when I told her I didn't like it, she said "but that's what I'm known for."
Re:Nothing new (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pure FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you have to have trial by jury in the States?
Here in Canada it is something that you can elect to have or you can have trial by judge. Seems to me that being accused of child porn you would be safer going without a jury.
Re:ZOMG! (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, it's not just the USA. Plenty of societies have seen fit to drive human sexuality underground.
My guess is, a lot of adults have poor control over their sexual responses ("eyes up here"), and they know it, and it embarrasses them. So, they see fit in their societies to push sexuality underground so they're not tempted unless they want to be. This goes double for teenagers.
I think this explains the sexual climate in certain middle eastern countries particularly well--you know, the places where they put a lot of effort into segregating men and women so that no one has to get all aroused unless they want to.
'Course, many of those people are embarrassed that they're embarrassed, or simply don't want to admit their lack of control, so they find other rationalizations for driving sexuality underground. It's "dirty," "corrupting," "nasty," "uncivilized," "evil," whatever. Sometimes the rationalization takes on a life of its own, and the push against sexuality takes on extremes (such as middle eastern countries that essentially punish female rape victims for tempting their assailants).
As far as violence goes, kids are naturally violent. You can shield them from violence and they'll create their own. (Well, boys will.) The same is generally not true of sexuality. Kids (prepubescent) may be curious about their nether parts, but aren't driven to sex in the same way adults (and pubescent minors) are. In other words, shielding kids from violence is a losing proposition, whereas shielding them from sexuality is semi-successful (at least until they develop libidos).
Re:SOP (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, there's this thing called projection. It basically means that we tend to see other people as similar to ourselves. In this context it means that the people who write these laws are convinced that anyone who sees a child in anything less than a burka will face an irresistible urge to...
...Coming to think of it, I began writing this as a nasty joke, but it actually does explain a lot, now doesn't it?
Yes, but since you bought them from Barnes & Noble they're artistic rather than low-brow smut from a swingers magazine. It's the thought that counts, even - especially - on crime. And everyone knows that a picture contains the soul of the subject, so if you look upon a picture lustfully, the subject gets raped. It's basic voodoo, and I for one am very shocked that you weren't taught it in the fine institutes of learning that teach Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling.
"And as long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony", quoth Susie Derkins apropriate enough. Drop us a line if you ever see that "freedom of the press" anywhere, okay?
"To the pure all things are pure, but to the impure and defiled is nothing pure" - another guy called Paul.
Now consider the people who write our laws in the light of the above and many things become quite clear.