Age rule discussion re: Christina Applegate and others.

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by zplonk

I don't get it either. As long as Applegate isn't nude, why is the forum scared of being sued by whoever? Nude is nude, and it seems ridiculous to expect that Applegate would be nude in Married with Children, so why limit screencaps to season that she was under 18? Banning the showing photos of underage children, I get that. Even then you have problem because do you follow Kansas rules (age 16) or California rules (age 18) In all of the EU, the age of consent is 16. My main complaint is that you seem to follow the wishes of whoever complains about whatever pic is shown. In other words, this is a PORN forum, yet you apply Sunday school rules, based upon complaints of those who can't stand porn, and the Seven Words that can't be spoken. Where in the rules does it say that on this here porno forum we will adhere to the sensitivities of the most sanctimonious, with 19th century Victorian morals? I guess you're afraid of being sued. That's fair. But 1. exactly how often have you been sued? Not threatened via Cease and Desist letters, because every vindictive older woman whose husband left her for a younger model can whip one of those up in 15 seconds. But an actual suiing? 2. Have you ever thought about calling their bluff? Sorry, mate, but it seems ridiculous to run a porno forum with Sunday school rules and to cower in fear for every complaint. Listen I DO get that every forum is not a democracy, and that it's run like a dictatorship, but this is just my humble opinion, please don't delete this! I suppose should add that I totally respect you and your rules, and that talking back to the admins is sacrilege.

Talking to, or back to admins is not sacrilege, though rehashing something that has been discussed, at length many, many times is punishable by death.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with us being sued, it has everything with us doing what is necessary to protect this forum, ourselves and our members from being prosecuted for distributing child pornography.

It is precisely because we are a hard core porn forum, first and foremost that we have to be very rigid on this point, it was decided by the mods several years back to have an age rule, and that age was 18, in the UK 18 is the legal age to do most stuff kids look forward (or not) to, drinking, gambling, getting married without parental consent, getting a tattoo, posing in porn magazines, movies etc.

Where would you draw the line?, seeing an actress in sexy attire such as a bikini or skimpy shorts and top, 17, 16, 15, 14?????

Again I say, this is the rule, we expect all members to adhere to it, if you like seeing under 18's then this is not the forum for you.

[zplonk]

I'm sorry if this has been discussed to death, I don't want to rehash anything, but I've read the thread, and up till now, the discussion didn't make a whole lot of sense, I was completely lost when the argument seemed to be made that we shouldn't post Applegates non-nude pictures because she had breast cancer?

Where would you draw the line?, seeing an actress in sexy attire such as a bikini or skimpy shorts and top, 17, 16, 15, 14?????"

Do you have credible proof that showing such pictures or videos, of non-nude girls, of which there are THOUSANDS on Youtube, will lead to being prosecuted for child pornography??

I draw the line at NUDITY, just like major sites like Youtube do.

Where would you draw the line? Showing the face of under 16 girls, that's distributing child porn?

Seriously, to equate linking to pics of girls in bikinis with "distributing child pornography.", is quite insulting to the actual victims of child pronography.
Also, it's NOT the same.

And please, don't try to muddle the issue here with accusations about anyone liking em young.

My issue is the extremism in your standards and overzealousness. I really can't believe that you really think that linking to a prime-time/day-time show like MARRIED with Children is the same as child porn.

Applegate is always fully clothed in the show, no nipples, no underwear, no bikinis, at most she show legs. if I'm wrong, please point out the specific episode.

If that's distributing child pornography, then all the moms from my Midwestern suburb should be sued, because they all have 12-18 year old daughters who wear skimpy shorts to school.


Let's be very clear: I fully get your rule "do not show pictures of girls under 18, even if they're fully clothed".

What really troubles me is your reasoning behind the rule: You fear to be prosecuted for distributing child porn. So that's weird to me. And to others, it seems, when said girls are fully clothed. Yes, since I don't see police roaming the beaches arresting girls wearing bikinis, bikini wearing girls aren't (Todd) Akin to spreading child porn (pun intended)

[DTravel]

The issue is not the over-zealousness and standards of the staff. The issue is the THREAT of legal action, by ANYONE. Any legal action would put this forum out of business. It would simply cost too much to attempt a legal defense.

This site is not linking the posting of pictures of girls under 18 with child pornography. It IS dealing with the reality that many people WILL, for reasons that have little if any connection to reality. This is a PORN SITE, someone, somewhere will link the posting of ANY picture of someone underage by some standard somewhere in the world (or even just their own mind) with child pornography. ("Its a kid, its on a porn site, don't that make it kiddie porn?!")

The Age 18 rule is simple, clear and (relatively) easy to enforce. It also avoids problems with different Moderators in different sections applying different personal standards of "acceptable". The staff has chosen to err on the side of caution. If you cannot accept that, then you should not visit here.

(And I'm not aware of any serious argument that we should stop posting any pics of someone because they had or have breast cancer. )

[zplonk]

Originally Posted by DTravel

This site is not linking the posting of pictures of girls under 18 with child pornography. It IS dealing with the reality that many people WILL, for reasons that have little if any connection to reality. This is a PORN SITE, someone, somewhere will link the posting of ANY picture of someone underage by some standard somewhere in the world (or even just their own mind) with child pornography. ("Its a kid, its on a porn site, don't that make it kiddie porn?!&quot

Aaaargh!! You really are causing me head-aches. 1. Again: Why accept the standards of those people who aren't connected reality? (translation: why do what crazy people want you to do?) Why not stand up for your own, and generally accepted norms, standards and regulations: nudity is a no no, everything on day time TV is ok 2. The applegate rule especially is silly, and weird. Pray tell how a completely above board TV show, Disney like in nature, could be misconstrued as child porn. If some people do that, the issue is in THEIR minds, not ours. 3. Has anyone EVER complained about Married with Children? Did you have a sense they weren't trolling, or extremely fixated on this issue? Sorry to go on about this, but I'm really upset about it.

[MemoryHunter]

Zplonk,

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it...

This site is free due to (minimal) advertising, and the revenues are just sufficient to cover its operational costs. Even the mods work for free. Any legal defence incurs costs which can be immense and cases can take a long time to resolve, often running into years.

TV and movie studios, along with many actors and actresses employ their own legal teams and have access to large cash reserves.

The bottom line is that potentially any legal action could see the Forum closed for the duration of any case(s) after which the site may be able to reopen after a successful outcome, but it might then need to raise revenue to recoup the costs of legal fees.

If the site is acted against, that may well deter future advertisers and then there remain only two options; close down or become a pay site.

I like the site the way it is. I wouldn't want to see more advertising, or have to pay to be here. Worst of all I'd hate to see the place shut down, even if it were only temporarily.

The best way to avoid people taking legal action is to not give them any reason to do so. Whether it's a legitimate action, or just some nutcase(s) out to cause the site to close through lack of funds.

You may not agree with the rules, but you do have to follow them. As you have stated, the material you talk about is widely available elsewhere on the 'net. So you are not being denied access to it. It's just that you wont see it here.

Life isn't always fair, and the way we'd like it to be. Sometimes you just need to accept that; "That's just the way it is." and learn to live with it.

[Sam Spade]

I could trawl through the arguments for a more liberal attitude one by one, but I won't as it's all been said before, many times.

This site has an owner, he lets the mods create and uphold the rules of the forum, we debated the age rule and the consensus was 18, it's much easier for us to police and for members to adhere to.

If you have a picture of an actress aged 17 in a short skirt and a tight top you might well wonder "does this image violate the forums rule?

(This "rule" is for illustrative purposes only. )

No provocative or sexual images of subjects under the age of 18 ~ non sexual images are allowed

You post it as you think it's OK, a mod then hits you with a formal warning for breaking said rule as he views it as a provocative picture.

You get bent out of shape as you think you have been hard done by, you then debate it with the mod as you disagree with the definition of "sexual" or "titillating".

The bottom line is this...

The rule is fairly straightforward to understand for both mods and members alike, it is not going to change no matter what you may think or say, if you do not like this rule I suggest you find another forum that allows such images.

End of story.

[zplonk]

Don't get me wrong, there's much about this site that I like, and your rules are your rules, (~Removed~) I don't really expect you to change them, because, you know, who wants to admit they've been wrong about anything? I respect that emotion, I really do.

"The best way to avoid people taking legal action is to not give them any reason to do so. Whether it's a legitimate action, or just some nutcase(s) out to cause the site to close through lack of funds."

Yah. There's such a thing as a frivolous lawsuit, though. This applies to the Applegate rule.
Seriously now: has anyone ever threatened the site, or ANY site with allegations of child porn because it has linked to screencaps of Christina Applegate on Married with Children?
No one seems to want to give me a straight answer on that one???!!
This is specifically about Applegate case.

And it's not true that people can just frivolously sue you, threaten to prosecute you, which the D.A. has to do, not "people" and I guarantee you, "Christina Applegate is child porn... because she was filmed fully clothed when she 18 in prime time", does not a good case make. DA's wanna be re-elected and all that.

I guess my other question is:
Can you give a link to any case where a site was threatened with any legal action, because they linked to screencaps of Christina Applegate on "Married with children"?

I agree with the need for clear rules, and the clearest rule is: no nudity.
No "sexy clothes" seems silly to me.

And the best way to avoid anything is not run a site at all, esspecially a porn one. (Also, with all due respect, this site is certainly not a hardcore porn site, it's quite softcore. Which I like.)

PS. you've worn me down. I'd like an answer to my questions, but at this point, I don't think I will get a straight one, so for me, this is quits.

[DTravel]

Zplonk, you are not going to get an answer to the question as you are asking it. When sites like this go down they do so for one of three reasons. 1) The owner doesn't want to run it anymore; 2) It runs out of money; or 3) Legal problems. AND THAT IS AS MUCH DETAIL AS THE USERS EVER GET 99% OF THE TIME. There are no "This site is being shut down because we were sued by XUZ on DATE over the posting of these images [DETAILS OR COPIES OF IMAGES]. You might get "This site has been shut down for violating the DMCA." But probably not.

This is the simple rule for here. This is an adult oriented site. As part of that the decision has been made that only images of adults will be posted here and the owner and staff have decided that 18 is the minimum age of "adult" for the purposes of this site. End of rule.

[69 chevy]

Originally Posted by zplonk

3. Has anyone EVER complained about Married with Children?

Actually, yes.

On January 15, 1989, Terry Rakolta and her children watched the Married... with Children episode "Her cups runneth over" (306). She was shocked by several things she saw when Al and Steve were shopping at a lingerie store in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin. There was a homosexual, a man in stockings and a woman who took off her bra (see the picture of topless Playboy Miss June 1985 Devin Velasquez playing "Vicki"). Therefore she wrote letters to all Married... with Children sponsors, protesting against their support for such a scandalous show, and several sponsors decided to cancel their commercials. This encouraged Terry Rakolta to leave her home in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, to visit some talkshows. On March 2, 1989, this story made it to the front page of The New York Times. Other newspapers and TV shows also reported about her campaign against the show. Finally Rakolta even founded the group "Americans for Responsible Television" to fight for traditional values on US TV. However, this publicity made the people curious about the show and its ratings increased tremendously. The producers have sent a fruit basket to Rakolta every Christmas since then, and she was even mentioned twice on the show: we can hear a TV announcer refer to Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, in episode 414 (talking about sluts!), and Marcy mentions Rakolta as "woman from Michigan" in episode 909. Hustler magazine made her "Asshole of the Month".