.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to soloman.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="soloman:272501"]Putting all definitions of "fine art" aside... the only problem i see with this is the potential for someone in control to look at a piece of fine art that explores sexuality, and force it to be taken down from display until the model's age can be verified. Still, the law clearly says depictions of actual explicit sex. A picture of a naked lady is not going to be eliminated because some religious prude thinks it's naughty. I really just don't see anything wrong with recquiring more paper work from people in the porn industry that could be making money off of minors. My freedoms are definitly not trampled at all here, except maybe the freedom to get away with posting a found pic of underage sex. I understand "slippery slope" concerns. But this doesnt look like censorship or an attempt to control the internet. This is an attempt to further control child pornography in US, which is already illegal. So i gotta say this hardly worries me.[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.005 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][