AV0X Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 (edited) Click here to view The misleading thread title is a tactic. :ninja: Thoughts? Edited July 4, 2005 by fred666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waurbind Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 i think that the title is a bit misleading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Objexxx Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 ^^ So do I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fedorpheux Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 yeah, that title is extremely misleading, actually........ :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AV0X Posted July 4, 2005 Author Share Posted July 4, 2005 yeah, that title is extremely misleading, actually........ :rolleyes: 586160356[/snapback] How's the new title? :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfoos Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 A better source for the article. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/24/us_law_2257/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNay Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 Stupid is all I have to say. I heard about this on shortnews.com last week and laughed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jak0bk Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 I thought that all porn had to have proof of age on file with the providers already? Maybe I'm just not versed in the ways of the sex industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnakinSolo2002 Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 What teh hell? That's it, I'm moving to England... so I can **** all the 16 year old stuts I wanna.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hum Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 :blink: Whaaa ... ? Only children view poRn ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot B. Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 What teh hell?That's it, I'm moving to England... so I can **** all the 16 year old stuts I wanna.... 586160456[/snapback] lol and I try to keep to it :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted July 4, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 4, 2005 I thought that all porn had to have proof of age on file with the providers already? Maybe I'm just not versed in the ways of the sex industry. 586160387[/snapback] Yeah, this is meant to effect sites that repost images, and other sites (e.g. personals) where people put explicit images in a profile or such. legitimate sites wont be harmed (some say otherwise, which makes me think they a, have no idea how old the people are or b, know that some of the people are underaged) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echilon Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 I can't see how americans can do without porn, they'll probably find a way to get them to reconsider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShell Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 What teh hell?That's it, I'm moving to England... so I can **** all the 16 year old stuts I wanna.... 586160456[/snapback] lol :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hangin67 Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 It looks like google and alltheweb will have to shut down. Just turn off the content filter and search porn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted July 4, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 4, 2005 The misleading thread title is a tactic. :ninja: Thoughts? 586160343[/snapback] My thought is that Community Rule #6 applies: Use a title that describes the content of your post. [Thread Title Edited] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apex. Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 Oh Noes! According to that I may have 25gb of Child Porn! OH HELP ME GOD! (jk. all my porn is 18+) ..... i hope :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obsolete_power Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 Just cuz the US government decides to make a rule that says all porn is child porn unless you post your physical address is very stupid and shouldn't be paid attention to. The should stop trying to take everything away from people because sick in the head people like to see children being sexually abused and scarred for life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madnuke Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 This is what happens when you vote a republican hard line neo con who is obbssed with god. The lesson is in '08 vote democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun05 Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 what if an really old women pose naked is it still child porn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathray Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 Im curious... all this attention to a U.S. decision, so what... get porn from europe and such, the ruling wouldn't apply to those sites correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferret Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 So ya tellin' me that the granny pr0n that some people watch, is still child pr0n ? I believe in porn, but NOT child porn - And this takes buiscuit ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathray Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 Hmm... i remember what else i was going to say. Why cant they simply call it illegal porn? It really aint child porn, it could be, but most isn't... so why not just refer to it as illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted July 4, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 4, 2005 [Thread Moved from GD to RWI] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Dick Montage Subscriber² Posted July 4, 2005 Subscriber² Share Posted July 4, 2005 This is actually a very dangerous move. Bear with me... OK so we all accept porn is on the web, heck I'll freely admit to having visited a few sites from time to time. Porn is part of the culture, like it or not. But child porn is sick to the extreme - it is generally not tollerated and considered depraved. Now all porn can fall into this category because of bad book-keeping? That then makes this category "watered down" and it's harder to identify the meaning/boundaries of porn/child porn. As such, child porn will become less of a "no-no" because, hey, we may have got it wrong. See where I'm coming from? This worries me!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts