The Rules and The Law

[Mastertank1]

There is a rule on TMF; neither images nor stories of 'lees or 'lers under the age of 18 may be posted.

A while back, I inadvertently posted a story in which a 'ler was under 18. Viper was kind enough to point this out to me, and I rewrote the story to correct that mistake. I thanked him at the time for pointing that out to me, and I repeat those thanks. I have never repeated that error.

Lately, I notice increasing numbers of requests being posted for artwork and/or stories which involve underage characters. Many of them are characters originally from videogames, anime, or manga. When ever anyone complains about the posting of these requests, not only does the original poster jump all over them both in posts and PMs, but so do a bunch of others who seem to pretend to be the ACLU of the TMF, charging to the rescue like some misguided cavalry.

Let me point something out; this rule is not just some arbitrary whim on the part of the moderators. It not just a politically correct lip service to community standards either.

The way the laws of this country stand today, if those requests are fulfilled, and some of them have been, all it would take would be one asshole who calls the presence of those drawings and/or stories on TMF to the attention of the FCC, and they would have legal grounds to SHUT THE TMF DOWN!

That's the way the relevant Federal law reads these days. Even if the depictions are verbal only. Even if they are only drawings. Even if the underage persons involved are fictional characters who have never existed in real life. Crazy as that may sound to some of us, THAT IS THE WAY THE LAW STANDS RIGHT NOW!

To those of you who are up in arms over curtailment of your 'right to free speech', or to that of others, will you feel self righteous satisfaction if these things are allowed to be posted and remain up until the TMF gets shut down by the feds? Will you feel a sense of triumph over those of us who wanted to obey the law because you got your way and it resulted in no forum remaining for anyone to post anything? Will you feel vindicated if the TMF is killed for refusing to interfere with your 'freedom of speech'?

If you answered any of those questions with a yes, please, do us all a favor and start taking your meds again! You really aren'y functional without them.

For my part, I'm not going out of my way to look for them, but if I happen to come across those requests, or the fulfillment thereof, I will report them at once to the appropriate Moderator from now on.

 

[venray]

Well spoken sir!.........

 

[KoocheeKoo]

I agree 100%.....well said!

If anyone wants stories, artwork, or pics about tickling underage kids or teens....create and post them on your own website; that way, if anyone gets in trouble/ shut down....it won't be TMF.

 

[TicklishLurker]

I agree 100%.....well said!

If anyone wants stories, artwork, or pics about tickling underage kids or teens....create and post them on your own website; that way, if anyone gets in trouble/ shut down....it won't be TMF.

Not to mention they're the only ones who end up on the Registered Sex Offenders list. Whereas if it's here the entire member list of TMF ends up on it. Not something I want or feel I deserve since everyone who knows me knows I believe pedophiles should get the death penalty.

 

[Bugman]

Could not agree with ya more.People who get their jollies that way need to go elsewhere,they are not welcome here.I will report anything that even looks like it might be wrong.If we don't police our selves,someone will do it for us or worse.

 

[Mitchell]

Very well said, tank. I post many stories on here, some with real life people, and others with fictional characters. In all of my stories, I always make sure to state up front that the character involved in the story and the tickling, either lee or ler, is 18 or over, for this reason, so as not to get the site, or myself, into trouble. Last September 28th, I posted a tickling story about Hilary Duff, and did so only after midnight on her 18th birthday, writing the disclaimer into my story, to be sure it was clearly visible, and understood by all, mod, and other, who read it.
If we all exercise caution, and adhere to the rule clearly, everything should be fine, but thanks for pointing it out, it is important information for everyone to remember.

Mitch

 

[TicklishLurker]

If we all exercise caution, and adhere to the rule clearly, everything should be fine, but thanks for pointing it out, it is important information for everyone to remember.

Mitch

People also need to stop thinking "Well, Misty/Mandy/Kim Possible are just cartoon characters! So it's okay to request bondage/tickling stories/images involving them." It's not. Drawings and generated images like that are now illegal. Even if they're fully clothed - this is a website where for many of us tickling is a part of our sex lives, it's guilt by association and the law WILL see it as pedophila, fictional characters or not. (I see it that way and it makes me sick!) And now adays you can end up a registered sex offender just for throwing away your Playboys in a manner that little kids can get them out and see them. So we have to be extra careful. I'm sure none of us want to end up here.

 

[TicklishLurker]

I completely agree with the original poster. I can't say I've seen anyone "pretend to be the ACLU of the TMF" and defend these requests, though; could be because I don't visit the requests section too much.

The requests are rarely in the offical Request section - they're usually in the Artwork or Stories section. Plus some of the defenders of those who make these inapropriate requests are cowardly enough to send PMs to those who point out the rules and call them "high & mighty" and "holier then thou" and generally call the people who point out there's a "No one under 18" rule stupid.

 

[drew70]

The way the laws of this country stand today, if those requests are fulfilled, and some of them have been, all it would take would be one asshole who calls the presence of those drawings and/or stories on TMF to the attention of the FCC, and they would have legal grounds to SHUT THE TMF DOWN!

LMAO! Queue the orchestra, Nelson!

I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh when the melodrama hits a certain level. We're talking about cartoons and fictional characters, for the most part. How are you going to determine the age of a cartoon character? Are you going to demand to see her cartoon birth certificate? That we're even discussing this in any context outside pure comedy is astonishing.

Moderators - please feel free to move this thread to the more appropriate "Silly Stuff" forum.

 

[venray]

The characters are given "ages" by their creators and as such that is how the law recognizes them....

You would not think it silly if the forum were shut down now would you?

🙁

 

[Mastertank1]

Well, at least you're consistent;

LMAO! Queue the orchestra, Nelson!

I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh when the melodrama hits a certain level. We're talking about cartoons and fictional characters, for the most part. How are you going to determine the age of a cartoon character? Are you going to demand to see her cartoon birth certificate? That we're even discussing this in any context outside pure comedy is astonishing.

Moderators - please feel free to move this thread to the more appropriate "Silly Stuff" forum.

The laws that are now on the books have addressed that little problem; they state that any cartoon character which represents a human, and which does not have readily visible adult features, is presumed to be a representation of an underage child for purposes of the law.

The arrogance, to ask the mods to move a thread started by someone else. In fact, you're one of those I referred to as 'the ACLU of the TMF, riding to the resue like misguided cavalry'.

 

[drew70]

The characters are given "ages" by their creators and as such that is how the law recognizes them....

Okay, lets say an amime cartoonist back in 1996 creates a teenage girl and establishes her age at fourteen. The series is successful and has a ten year run. It's now 2006 and the same girl is still a main character, though her age hasn't been mentioned since. Can we not conclude she is now 24 years of age. Does the "law" take such things into account?

You would not think it silly if the forum were shut down now would you?

🙁

I certainly don't want to see the forum shut down, and I can't think of a sillier reason to do so. If it DOES ever get shut down, it will be because of threads like this one, and people who keep hysterically insisting how "guilty" we as a forum community are.

 

[venray]

No..it would be because there are those that would stoop low enough to report us all as perverts.....

That is why such content should be totally eliminated....

If it is so important that people need to see cartoon "minors" in fetish situations then there is a much bigger problem here, my friend.... 😉

 

[Deadsea7777]

I agree with Mtank. The rule is the rule and should be respected as long as it stands.
If somebody does not agree with the rule, should propose a change or a debate to decided about to change the rule.
But as long as it exist it should be respected.

 

[Mastertank1]

Silly or not is not the question

The question is, what is the law (or in this case FCC regulation) and will it be enforced?
In a country where 22 states defeated laws forbidding the teaching of evolution by margins of 1 or 2 votes, where 3 other states passed those laws, and where 17 states still have laws making it a felony for a MARRIED HETERO COUPLE to engage in either oral or anal sex, does anyone want to bet that such a regulation or law, now on the books, will NOT be enforced? By the administration we have now?
I'm not willing to take that risk with a website that has become so important to me!
Nor am I willing to risk having the names of every registered member of this site listed as a sexual child predator, on a list which will not distinguish between us, who are members and may never have even looked at those toons, and some evil bastard who has violently raped and murdered children. The names just appear on the list with NO specifics!
Just as an aside; some cartoon characters age, but some do not!
Little LULU, and Nancy of Nancy and Sluggo, and the whole Peanuts gang NEVER aged a day in over 20 years of publication, so there is certainly no safety in that assumption.
There is also another factor to consider; while some of us may consider the entire idea silly, I can easily see how the parents of an underage child might consider that someone who derives pleasure from looking at toons of a fictional character who is the same age as their child bound and tickled might, just possibly, want to do that to their child, and might, just possibly, act on that desire!
As the uncle of a stunningly beautiful (She bears NO resemblance to my side of the family, thank God!) 14 year old niece, any cartoon showing children in that age range bound and tickled makes me feel a bit uneasy, and I imagine that my brother (her dad) might take such a thing very seriously indeed, and could easily regard people who enjoy those images as a potential threat to his daughter!
I think that rule should be enforced rigidly.

 

[drew70]

Nor am I willing to risk having the names of every registered member of this site listed as a sexual child predator, on a list which will not distinguish between us, who are members and may never have even looked at those toons, and some evil bastard who has violently raped and murdered children.

LMAO! Dammit Nelson, queue that fucking orchestra, already! Good Lord, I've not seen such panicking paranoia since Bush was first elected.

First of all, we're all already on several lists. I know some people in Homeland Security, and trust me, they have a file on EVERYbody. The suggestion that we risk being lumped into the same category as child predators because we visit a website that has a story in which a teenage girl gets innocently tickled has catapulted this discussion way beyond silly, and into the outright ridiculous.

I'm not saying that Jeff and Myriads should allow content about minors. They are right to forbid it. What I'm saying is let's just try to discuss it a little more reasonably without all the drama and paranoia, and in the proper forum, not Tickling Discussion. Fair enough?

 

[korovan]

Okay, lets say an amime cartoonist back in 1996 creates a teenage girl and establishes her age at fourteen. The series is successful and has a ten year run. It's now 2006 and the same girl is still a main character, though her age hasn't been mentioned since. Can we not conclude she is now 24 years of age. Does the "law" take such things into account?

I would think that, in the above example, if the character in question had gone through various milestones (such as HS graduation and going to college) and/or visibly matured over the course of the series then a judge MIGHT rule that it was OK to depict them in stories/artwork/etc. Emphasis on MIGHT: you never can tell how the legal process will turn out until the gavel comes down...

On the other hand, if the above hypothetical character is still wearing pigtails and a sailor suit and attending Wanataiyu Junior High in 2006... I think that would be considered a case of typical comic-book "telescoped time" (how long was the first Robin a "boy wonder?" 40 years?) and the character would still be considered a minor....

I've seen a lot of writers and artists take underage characters and age them for the purpose of the depiction. Y'know: "After her college-graduation ceremony, Kim Possible decided to get a pedicure...." kinda thing. I imagine a judge would view that as OK, but aain you never can tell.

And when it comes to fantasy/scifi characters and settings, lots of gray areas exist. Is it "OK" to depict the tickling of (or by) a 400 year old vampire... who is frozen eternally at 13? Or how about a 13 year old who is matured to her mid 20s physically by a magic potion or a genie or whatever? What about robot sailor-girls? I have no idea what a judge might make of such things...

I guess my own opinion is: there are more than enough definitely grown-up characters out there to serve as fantasy objects. Why even take the risk of bringing down legal bad-stuff by involving "iffy" characters? At least, in a public forum where you are exposing others to the consequences of your risks...

My 2-cents.

 

[korovan]

There's nothing to discuss "more reasonably"; content involving minors is explicitly forbidden here, no room for discussion or hair-splitting over what "underage" means.

Uh... see my above post, please. Like it or not, there IS considerable room for hairsplitting. Don't get me wrong: I am naturally opposed to the abuse of minors.... but there are lots of scenarios where the definition of what "underage" means is debatable.

 

[drew70]

There's nothing to discuss "more reasonably"; content involving minors is explicitly forbidden here, no room for discussion or hair-splitting over what "underage" means.

LOL. Well don't blame me. I didn't start this ridiculous thread.

 

[venray]

Uh... see my above post, please. Like it or not, there IS considerable room for hairsplitting. Don't get me wrong: I am naturally opposed to the abuse of minors.... but there are lots of scenarios where the definition of what "underage" means is debatable.

No...it is not debatable...it is defined by law...that is the point of this so called silly thread....

There was no drama here, Drew, my friend until you decided to make it so with ridicule....disappointing at best...


The fact of the matter is that minor content as defined by law is not permitted here, so all those who relish in underage content should find another place to post or request it.....

Personally I think those guilty of multiple offenses in this area should be sent packing......permanently....lest they ruin things for the rest of us...

 

[korovan]

No...it is not debatable...it is defined by law...that is the point of this so called silly thread....

There was no drama here, Drew, my friend until you decided to make it so with ridicule....disappointing at best...


The fact of the matter is that minor content as defined by law is not permitted here, so all those who relish in underage content should find another place to post or request it.....

Personally I think those guilty of multiple offenses in this area should be sent packing......permanently....lest they ruin things for the rest of us...

To reitierate my personal position: I am against the exploitation of minors in any form. That being said... well for the sake of argument/mental exercise:

Venray: you say the whole thing is defined by law, and I believe you and will be the first to admit that I don't know the law at all. But if YOU do, will you tell me how the law would treat the depiction of my hypothetical characters: all of which are fantastic and "impossible" in the real world.

1. The 400 year old vampire, who was turned when she was 13. Would the law apply to her real age (which is centuries over 18 or 21) or would her apparent age (13) be more germane?

2. Conversely, what about the youngster who is artificially aged in some manner (potion, genie's wish, whatever). Again, which age is the relevant one... and be careful: it's seems like whatever choice/judgement you make it will conflict with whatever you said for #1 above....

3. How about a realistic automaton (robot, android, replicant, whatver) who appear to be a certain age (again say 13) but is either even younger (the part were manufactered last year, the owner assembled her from a kit yesterday...) or older (a remnant of a lost ultra-tech culture from eons ago, say...). In addition to the age issue, in this scenario we have the added wrinkle that the subject isn't even human (despite appearances) or even alive...

In my admittedley uninformed and inexpert opinion, I think all of the above examples if brought before a judge would make that robed worthy scratch his or her head in perplexity. The law seems very slow to adapt to and catch up with REAL advances in technology (for example), I think that such truly "out there" scenarios (by most people standards) would simply not be addressed by any existing statutes or precedents.

If anyone thinks I'm wrong, pipe up and tell me WHY please. I am exercsing my brain here, and can use all the help I can get....

 

[Mastertank1]

My point, my friend

Uh... see my above post, please. Like it or not, there IS considerable room for hairsplitting. Don't get me wrong: I am naturally opposed to the abuse of minors.... but there are lots of scenarios where the definition of what "underage" means is debatable.

is that we can't count on a judge to make that determination in our favor, if the law is so ambiguous. Especially not judges appointed by right wingers like Bush and his supporters.
There is also something called risk/benefit analysis; it balances the maximum possible benefit against the maximum possible risk.

The maximum possible risk is as Ticklishlurker stated; the TMF could be shut down, the membership list subpoenaed, and everyone on that list added to a nationally published list of child sexual predators, which does not carry any information about the individual offenses so that all are lumped together as I said above.

If the case went to court, all it would take would be for the judge to deem any one item allowed to remain posted to be an instance of child porn for the case to go against us. Yes, we would have ACLU lawyers trying to interpret anything the least bit ambiguous in our favor, but there would be prosecutors
trying to interpret those same ambiguities against us. There might be a jury in the early trials, but final resolution would came in a Federal court before only a panel of judges because the case hinges on constitutional law. As for jury trials; all it would take would be one parent or grandparent of an underage child on the jury for that jury to be way more hostile to our side than any judge.

The maximum possible benefit is that a small number of individuals, whose preferences this website officially rejects, let me remind everyone, would be able to see the stuff they want here rather than on some other site dedicated specifically to that type of material.

Honestly, Korovan; even if you accept the assertions of a complacent idiot that nothing will happen, do you feel that even the most miniscule, 1% of 1% of 1% risk that this worst might happen is worth running to achieve the highly dubious 'benefit'? I certainly don't, and so far the only poster on this thread who doesn't agree with me is Drew70.

Before you pay too much attention to his idiotic 'opinions', he has had a personal animosity towards me ever since I first started posting, and called him on the obvious fact that he posts contrary bullshit just to draw heated responses and registers as bogus new members to present the false appearance of having support from others. He has frequently placed derogatory posts on threads I started, just because I started them. Until now, I've ignored them as they and he deserve, but this issue is too potentially important to all of us to let his incredibly asinine bullshit go unchallenged this time.

I started this thread because several members PMd me about the problem, stating that they were thinking of deleting all their posts and asking the mods to delete them from the membership records because of this exact issue, and I don't see why members should be forced to leave to protect themselves against what may be brought down on all of us by a handful of members whose preferences in this matter, and yes it bears repeating again, ARE OFFICIALLY REJECTED BY THIS WEBSITE!

 

[lk70]

It seems there are members of the forum who like to argue for argument's sake- just for the intellectual exercise. That's great- personally I'm all for it, late at night, with several empty bottles of wine laying around and maybe a fire in the fireplace. But I don't think we should hope to alter the rules of the site with it in this case.

I really don't know how much of a threat is out there but like Tank says, if it's even .001%, I'm not willing to risk it. And if the site rules say no underage stuff, then there simply shouldn't be any. And there shouldn't be any argument. And anything that could be interpreted as such, no matter how big a stretch, shouldn't be here. So if it's a vampire who turned at age 13 but is now 400- not allowed. If it's an artificially aged youngster - not allowed. If it's an adult who has been hypnotized to behave as a youngster - not allowed. That's all.

I'm about as liberal as they come and personal liberties are a really big deal to me. So in that vein, if you're interested in anime or whathaveyou that depicts characters who may appear to be underage- have at it- but this isn't the place for it.

We can continue the debates about what a judge might or might not rule, and continue the intellectual exercise about what's appropriate, but I think anything that could be interpreted as illegal and/or child pornography should NOT be on this site.

 

[Mastertank1]

You are right and wrong at the same time.

To reitierate my personal position: I am against the exploitation of minors in any form. That being said... well for the sake of argument/mental exercise:

Venray: you say the whole thing is defined by law, and I believe you and will be the first to admit that I don't know the law at all. But if YOU do, will you tell me how the law would treat the depiction of my hypothetical characters: all of which are fantastic and "impossible" in the real world.

1. The 400 year old vampire, who was turned when she was 13. Would the law apply to her real age (which is centuries over 18 or 21) or would her apparent age (13) be more germane?

2. Conversely, what about the youngster who is artificially aged in some manner (potion, genie's wish, whatever). Again, which age is the relevant one... and be careful: it's seems like whatever choice/judgement you make it will conflict with whatever you said for #1 above....

3. How about a realistic automaton (robot, android, replicant, whatver) who appear to be a certain age (again say 13) but is either even younger (the part were manufactered last year, the owner assembled her from a kit yesterday...) or older (a remnant of a lost ultra-tech culture from eons ago, say...). In addition to the age issue, in this scenario we have the added wrinkle that the subject isn't even human (despite appearances) or even alive...

In my admittedley uninformed and inexpert opinion, I think all of the above examples if brought before a judge would make that robed worthy scratch his or her head in perplexity. The law seems very slow to adapt to and catch up with REAL advances in technology (for example), I think that such truly "out there" scenarios (by most people standards) would simply not be addressed by any existing statutes or precedents.

If anyone thinks I'm wrong, pipe up and tell me WHY please. I am exercsing my brain here, and can use all the help I can get....

An HONEST, UNBIASED judge would scratch thier head in perplexity. The judge we're likely to get will simply choose to err on the side of protecting the children and interpret every one of those instances as child porn, and so would any jury not made up entirely of members of NAMBLA or heteros with the same age prefrence.

Anyone who is not aware that judges, both left wing and right wing, do in fact 'legislate from the bench' in cases like this has just not been paying attention.

In a case like this, I think even a lot of left wing judges would choose to protect the children rather than the free speech rights of pedophiles, and resolve all uncertainties against us. Even a New York City jury (as liberal as they get) would probably go the same way.

Also, consider this point; who will hire a lawyer to plead our side? Who will pay for the defense? If we end up with a court appointed defense lawyer they might well throw the case and refuse to file any appeals out of personal distaste. (I am a professional paralegal, I have worked for a lot of different lawyers, and I have seen this kind of thing happen.) Unless the ACLU decided to take our case, there might not be any legal challenge to shutting us down and putting us all on the list of child sexual predators.

This is because it would initially be an administrative procedure within the FCC, where we can appear at a hearing to present our side but we would not have any right to a court appointed lawyer. That means that if we couldn't
pay for one we wouldn't have one. Getting a lawyer to represent us for free, pro bono? When what we're accused of, however unjustly, is propagating child porn on the internet? Not bloody likely, man.

Any lawyer will tell you this; unless you have better lawyers than the government AND CAN OUTSPEND THE PROSECUTION, imprecision in the law is not a protection to the accused, it is a threat.

So, while I'm not saying that you're wrong, I am explaining why your being right in this case is very, very unlikely to do us any good. I hope this helps to clarify things.

(Please note the difference in the way I respond to an honorable person who raises an honest question in a reasonable manner!)

 

[venray]

Federal Child Pornography

Summary

CIPA refers to the federal legal definition of "child pornography" at 18 U.S.C. § 2256. The definition has changed a number of times over the past several years, with its latest incarnation as of April 30, 2003, when President George W. Bush signed the PROTECT Act. The Act implements the Amber Alert communication system. It also redefined "child pornography."

In 2003, child pornography includes not only images of real children, but also computer images that are indistinguishable from real children engaging in sexually explicit conduct. "Indistinguishable" is defined such that an "ordinary person" viewing the image would conclude that it is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

Therfor....if your "hypotheticals" listed above remotely APPEAR to be a minor to an "ordinary person, then posting these images would violate the child pornography laws....

I am not saying that the law is right or wrong....I AM saying that this site has to follow the law to the letter or risk being shut down.....

I for one do not wish this to happen...If you, korovan, do....well then I cannot argue with you....