-
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
Check out Tickling.com - the most innovative tickling site of the year. -
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
The Rules and The Law
- Thread starter Mastertank1
- Start date
LindyHopper
2nd Level Red Feather
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,426
- Points
- 38
Hold up, ven - then it sounds to me like cartoon depictions of underage characters, or stories that contain such characters, are not violations of child pornography laws, because it is clear to anyone with eyes that no actual children were involved. That said, I still find such material distasteful, and I'm all for erring on the side of caution because I don't trust the average judge's "interpretation" of the law as written.venray said:
As for the concern that we'll all end up on a sex offender registry - how is that possible, when we don't even have to provide our real names to register for a screenname on the TMF?
Wow. Gee, what do you say to something like that? I don't think I've ever witnessed such unchecked paranoia, to the point where drew70 clones are imagined into existance all with evil intent. LOL. If I thought there was anything legitimately damaging, I'd ask the mods to remove the slander, but the scope of its ludicrosity trancends any kind of meaningful insult. All I can do is sigh and hope to God I never come to the point where I imagine myself to be the one to whom people go to enforce the forum rules, or that the fate of the forum depends on me convincing everybody of Jami's fears.
I've already said that I agree with the current rules forbidding the depictions of minors. To reiterate, I propose no change in the current regulations regarding the posting of material with minors. My only objection was to the grossly exaggerated possible repercussions and scare tactics employed to secure a unanimous agreement. We're all adults here. We don't need to be "scared straight."
LindyHopper
2nd Level Red Feather
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,426
- Points
- 38
Just so you know, drew, both "paranoia" and "slander" rely definitionally on the material being false. If it isn't false, we call it "an accurate description of the facts at hand."drew70 said:
So lay off Tank, will ya? Nite_Giggler, JohnnyTicklish, susannah and the rest aren't here anymore to help you out when you pick fights with people you don't like.
Besides, I think we're all on the same page here. None of us want material posted that could in any way be deemed to contain underage characters. Done. No problem. So let's all move on, shall we?
Bagelfather
TMF Master
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2001
- Messages
- 855
- Points
- 18
aging characters
The way the law is written the character is underage as long as the character is drawn as such. The Simpsons has been on the air for over 17 years but Bart and Lisa are still considered minors. The length of time a cartoon show has been on is irrelevant.
Currently there is a very large push, a regular "witch hunt" to shut down child pornography online and even if it was found in the TMF (or anyone else's) favor at the end of everything the government would still have come in with a warrant based on the law and seize everything and hold it until the case was resolved. Yes they can and would come in and seize all the computer equipment, all financial records, etc. Your personal information which might be on the system would be subject to possible investigation.
Yes the government can seize the computer systems that easily. A search warrant for something like this would not be too hard to obtain depending on the judge involved.
Having worked with law enforcement for nearly 6 years I can tell you from personal experience Grand Jury cases are not solved in weeks like they are on TV. Most federal cases I have seen take anywhere from 1 to 2 years before there is resolution. There was one Federal case for theft where it had been 2.5 years and they were just getting to the trial phase.
After lawyer fees, your image on the news etc., is it worth trying to prove a point that isn't worth the fight? Not having an image of what may be underage individuals involved in what may be deemed adult conduct... is that worth it? If you think so set up your own site and see what happens.
In this case it is worth siding on caution.
If the cartoon was broadcast for a general rated audience that might be a different story and might not be deemed child pornography.
drew70 said:
The way the law is written the character is underage as long as the character is drawn as such. The Simpsons has been on the air for over 17 years but Bart and Lisa are still considered minors. The length of time a cartoon show has been on is irrelevant.
Currently there is a very large push, a regular "witch hunt" to shut down child pornography online and even if it was found in the TMF (or anyone else's) favor at the end of everything the government would still have come in with a warrant based on the law and seize everything and hold it until the case was resolved. Yes they can and would come in and seize all the computer equipment, all financial records, etc. Your personal information which might be on the system would be subject to possible investigation.
Yes the government can seize the computer systems that easily. A search warrant for something like this would not be too hard to obtain depending on the judge involved.
Having worked with law enforcement for nearly 6 years I can tell you from personal experience Grand Jury cases are not solved in weeks like they are on TV. Most federal cases I have seen take anywhere from 1 to 2 years before there is resolution. There was one Federal case for theft where it had been 2.5 years and they were just getting to the trial phase.
After lawyer fees, your image on the news etc., is it worth trying to prove a point that isn't worth the fight? Not having an image of what may be underage individuals involved in what may be deemed adult conduct... is that worth it? If you think so set up your own site and see what happens.
In this case it is worth siding on caution.
If the cartoon was broadcast for a general rated audience that might be a different story and might not be deemed child pornography.
Mastertank1
2nd Level Yellow Feather
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,375
- Points
- 0
I posted this here and in general discussion
to get it seen by the most people. The reasons for that should be self evident.
I also saw several of the requests that occasioned this thread posted here, and some in general discussion.
Drew, you didn't say you agreed with not posting stories or art with underage characters until your third post; from your first two posts most people would have thought the reverse. Perhaps you were too busy making personal attacks on me to state your own position on the topic of the thread.
Clearly, the growing number of people posting contrary opinions made you backtrack.
And as far as personal attacks, my how you squeal when someone pays you back in your own coin! Completely unable to take what you dish out so plentifully.
You know, trying to use ridicule as a weapon doesn't always work. When no one else in the group thinks that the object of your ridicule is ridiculous, you only suceed in making yourself ridiculous; which in this instance is quite redundant.
I'm not saying no one disagrees with me; only that no one else thinks the topic is ridiculous. I think Bagelfather's statement on the subject is definitive, and I thank you, sir, for adding your knowledge to the discussion. You mentioned some aspects of the sitiuation that I had been unaware of.
to get it seen by the most people. The reasons for that should be self evident.
I also saw several of the requests that occasioned this thread posted here, and some in general discussion.
Drew, you didn't say you agreed with not posting stories or art with underage characters until your third post; from your first two posts most people would have thought the reverse. Perhaps you were too busy making personal attacks on me to state your own position on the topic of the thread.
Clearly, the growing number of people posting contrary opinions made you backtrack.
And as far as personal attacks, my how you squeal when someone pays you back in your own coin! Completely unable to take what you dish out so plentifully.
You know, trying to use ridicule as a weapon doesn't always work. When no one else in the group thinks that the object of your ridicule is ridiculous, you only suceed in making yourself ridiculous; which in this instance is quite redundant.
I'm not saying no one disagrees with me; only that no one else thinks the topic is ridiculous. I think Bagelfather's statement on the subject is definitive, and I thank you, sir, for adding your knowledge to the discussion. You mentioned some aspects of the sitiuation that I had been unaware of.
LindyHopper said:
I spoke with a friend about this, a lawyer who happens to also be a special agent for the FBI. She tells me it's possible, but HIGHLY UNLIKELY the manpower would be spent to try to track something like this down. We were speaking only in general terms because I didn't care to divulge the gritty details about the site and the debate so that's all she could tell me.
jk666uk
Guest
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,173
- Points
- 0
drew70 said: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.
well said drew70 about time someone said it its a fucking cartoon character
not real life
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2001
- Messages
- 14,296
- Points
- 48
To clear up issues and put a period on many things here.
1) This is the proper forum for this post. It covers matters important to the forum and such things have always been discussed here. So it's cool that it was put here.
2) The standard that I use for judgements of what is 'ok' as an image to post is simple. If I walked out onto the street and held up the image to a random person walking by and said: "kid or adult" and the majority said "kid" then it goes.
400 year old vamp that looks 13? Kid
Robot built to look like a kid? Kid
and so on.
Stories take more effort. But work the same way.
Look folks. Here are the facts of the matter. Material that depicts underage people puts us at risk. Period. The APPEARENCE of underage media puts us at risk. All we need is for one child-fucker to get caught with links to the forum on their home system, and some image here that can be tied by a savy lawyer to their clients "poor lifestyle choice". And we are gone.
It's really that simple.
So stuff with minors (or things that look like minors) in it will get pulled. Requests for minor containing material will get pulled. Post it after we pull it and your account will get yanked. See an image that has minor depiction? Report it. We don't always see everything. So your reports help us.
We've said this over and over: This forum is considered one of a sexual nature. Things posted here are automatically shaded by that context. So you post kiddy stuff here, you are placing it in a sexual context for most of the people who view it, regardless of your own personal view of the material.
Here is an example of that context and it's result:
Once someone linked an image of a teenage girl getting tickled that they found on some personal webspace. It was the typical shot that someone who is 13 might put on thier myspace; them getting rib tickled by a friend with laughter. The poster did this in full innocence. They found any tickling to be fun and positive to see. They simply liked to share anything they found.
That girl got two e-mails requesting some graphic sex acts involving tickling that were directly traceable to two people who got to her site from here. No questions about that.
Mom was not amused. Happily, Mom was also a rational woman who had a polite discussion with me before lawyers were deployed, and torts fired off. And all was able to be settled without problems. Mom did not hesitate to point out that she had legal folks at the ready though. And I didn't doubt her one bit.
When you post this stuff that's the sort of situation you invite.
That invitation can kill us. No one will end up on lists or registries. Nothing so dramatic. But the forum will go dark. We'll be gone.
We'd sorta like to stick about. So please think about what you post, and follow our rules in spirit as well as letter on this topic.
Myriads
1) This is the proper forum for this post. It covers matters important to the forum and such things have always been discussed here. So it's cool that it was put here.
2) The standard that I use for judgements of what is 'ok' as an image to post is simple. If I walked out onto the street and held up the image to a random person walking by and said: "kid or adult" and the majority said "kid" then it goes.
400 year old vamp that looks 13? Kid
Robot built to look like a kid? Kid
and so on.
Stories take more effort. But work the same way.
Look folks. Here are the facts of the matter. Material that depicts underage people puts us at risk. Period. The APPEARENCE of underage media puts us at risk. All we need is for one child-fucker to get caught with links to the forum on their home system, and some image here that can be tied by a savy lawyer to their clients "poor lifestyle choice". And we are gone.
It's really that simple.
So stuff with minors (or things that look like minors) in it will get pulled. Requests for minor containing material will get pulled. Post it after we pull it and your account will get yanked. See an image that has minor depiction? Report it. We don't always see everything. So your reports help us.
We've said this over and over: This forum is considered one of a sexual nature. Things posted here are automatically shaded by that context. So you post kiddy stuff here, you are placing it in a sexual context for most of the people who view it, regardless of your own personal view of the material.
Here is an example of that context and it's result:
Once someone linked an image of a teenage girl getting tickled that they found on some personal webspace. It was the typical shot that someone who is 13 might put on thier myspace; them getting rib tickled by a friend with laughter. The poster did this in full innocence. They found any tickling to be fun and positive to see. They simply liked to share anything they found.
That girl got two e-mails requesting some graphic sex acts involving tickling that were directly traceable to two people who got to her site from here. No questions about that.
Mom was not amused. Happily, Mom was also a rational woman who had a polite discussion with me before lawyers were deployed, and torts fired off. And all was able to be settled without problems. Mom did not hesitate to point out that she had legal folks at the ready though. And I didn't doubt her one bit.
When you post this stuff that's the sort of situation you invite.
That invitation can kill us. No one will end up on lists or registries. Nothing so dramatic. But the forum will go dark. We'll be gone.
We'd sorta like to stick about. So please think about what you post, and follow our rules in spirit as well as letter on this topic.
Myriads
Bagelfather
TMF Master
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2001
- Messages
- 855
- Points
- 18
jk666uk said:
Here is a story from Matt Groening regarding The Simpsons and censorship. This was a while ago (over 8 or 9 years ago when he told it) when a fan asked if they were ever censored for conent.
There was an episode (forget which season but before 5th I think) where Lisa and Bart were writing for the Itchy and Scratchy Show. They had tricked their grandfather into pretending he was the writer because they would not read the scripts from children. Bart and Lisa were given a tour of the animation studio. In one room two writers were practicing gags for the show and in a cage they had a cat and a mouse. The original gag for the tv show was to have one of the writers put a lit stick of dynamite in the cage. When the door to the room closed and Lisa, Bart, and tourguide were walking away they would hear an explosion. The censors told them they could not air that.
The reason is because it depicted violence against animals. Matt Groening argued that Itchy and Scratchy butchered each other regularly. The censors replied "Itchy and Scratchy are a cartoon cat and mouse, these are real cats and mice."
They are both cartoons but one was depicted as being "real" and one wasn't.
If you get enough people calling their congressmen or representatives in an election year, or get a hold of the media, etc. I guarantee you someone will take action on this and make it an issue.
Bagelfather
TMF Master
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2001
- Messages
- 855
- Points
- 18
liklihood
It is unlikely. Law Enforcement is taxed to the maximum. Even criminals known to be committing financial crimes are not pursued unless they reach a certain dollar figure. In Santa Clara County they generally will not go after anything under $25,000, Federal agencies are higher standards. The USSS (Secret Service) will not try and prosecute crimes under $100,000 and the FBI generally $50,000. Stealing $10,000 and stealing $138,000 are both wrong but there are insufficient resources to handle all the cases.
The same with non violent or victimless crimes, there is not enough resources to go after or research. However, if it ends up on the news or someone goes and makes a stink, talks to their politicians, etc. I guarantee something will be done. I have seen a case where the person plead guilty and normally would have been let off with probation, a fine, and no jail time. SOMEONE wanted to make an example of him and prosecuted to the fullest extension of the law. People who don't cooperate don't get treated as harshly as this person did. Technically it is a crime and he should do the time, but it was politics which influenced the decision.
lk70 said:
It is unlikely. Law Enforcement is taxed to the maximum. Even criminals known to be committing financial crimes are not pursued unless they reach a certain dollar figure. In Santa Clara County they generally will not go after anything under $25,000, Federal agencies are higher standards. The USSS (Secret Service) will not try and prosecute crimes under $100,000 and the FBI generally $50,000. Stealing $10,000 and stealing $138,000 are both wrong but there are insufficient resources to handle all the cases.
The same with non violent or victimless crimes, there is not enough resources to go after or research. However, if it ends up on the news or someone goes and makes a stink, talks to their politicians, etc. I guarantee something will be done. I have seen a case where the person plead guilty and normally would have been let off with probation, a fine, and no jail time. SOMEONE wanted to make an example of him and prosecuted to the fullest extension of the law. People who don't cooperate don't get treated as harshly as this person did. Technically it is a crime and he should do the time, but it was politics which influenced the decision.
Mastertank1
2nd Level Yellow Feather
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,375
- Points
- 0
I see you live in the UK
If I ever have a question about how the law works in the UK, I'll be sure to ask your opinion. If I disagree with that opinion, I'll ask for clarification or amplification.
I certainly will not praise someone who may have posted ridicule directed at you and your opinion, because I will recognize the fact that as a native of the US, I do not know enough about the law in the UK for my opinion of it to have any value.
Please have the same awareness. Your opinion of how the law operates in the US has no value. If you read the whole thread before posting your opinion, you would have realized that Drew's opinion doesn't have any value either.
Besides, he was mostly just attacking me out of a long standing personal animosity; he may not even believe his own posts in this thread.
Unless you have some familiarity with the way the law works here in the US, please be aware that your comments are both ignorant and irrelevant. You have even less idea what you're talking about than the fool you praised.jk666uk said:
If I ever have a question about how the law works in the UK, I'll be sure to ask your opinion. If I disagree with that opinion, I'll ask for clarification or amplification.
I certainly will not praise someone who may have posted ridicule directed at you and your opinion, because I will recognize the fact that as a native of the US, I do not know enough about the law in the UK for my opinion of it to have any value.
Please have the same awareness. Your opinion of how the law operates in the US has no value. If you read the whole thread before posting your opinion, you would have realized that Drew's opinion doesn't have any value either.
Besides, he was mostly just attacking me out of a long standing personal animosity; he may not even believe his own posts in this thread.
Mastertank1
2nd Level Yellow Feather
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,375
- Points
- 0
I agree, Redmage;
My purpose in starting this thread was to call everyone's attention to the fact that the unreasonable are in control of the law enforcement apparatus in the USA, and alert everyone so that we can protect ourselves against them.
The manner in which the relevant laws and regulations are being applied and interpreted is totally unreasonable, often very nearly whimsical.Redmage said:
My purpose in starting this thread was to call everyone's attention to the fact that the unreasonable are in control of the law enforcement apparatus in the USA, and alert everyone so that we can protect ourselves against them.
german
1st Level Orange Feather
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,075
- Points
- 0
OK this is pretty interesting, looking in from an international window. It amazes me that an issue like this has so much legal ramification; ie the whole forum put on 'child predator' list (what ever the name).
Yet I am not entirely convinced that it would be a probably outcome, has somewhere heard of a case with similar circumstances? Thanks.
Kust
Yet I am not entirely convinced that it would be a probably outcome, has somewhere heard of a case with similar circumstances? Thanks.
Kust
HisFlyinFingers
TMF Regular
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 163
- Points
- 18
Let's take a step back from the legal arguments, and please let's take a step back from the personal attacks. We have a serious issue here that can easily be debated without even mentioning the names of people who disagree with you, so let's try that, huh?
Let's say, for just a moment, that we (or, rather, the owners and adminstrators of this forum, because they would be the most likely target) will never in a million years get prosecuted for anything on this site. It's all legal, we could post whatever we wanted without cops busting down our door and tattooing "child-buggerer" on our foreheads.
In that case, should we post the material in question? Is the law the only thing stopping child pornography? Is looking at a photograph of a child in a sexual situation different from seeing a drawing of that same situation? Or seeing that situation in person, for that matter? It could be argued that they are different, but studies show that the human brain reacts to each in the same way. And now, the law of the United States agrees with that.
The real issue is, however, not whether such material will be posted here with impunity; it has already been made clear that it will not. The issue is whether the people who enjoy and request material featuring minors will be accepted or even simply tolerated here. That's not only the job of the moderaters', that's the job of everyone who enjoys this site and wants it to continue. Those people can find other places for what they want -- unfortunately, it is out there -- they don't need to be here and we don't need to accomodate them.
Let's say, for just a moment, that we (or, rather, the owners and adminstrators of this forum, because they would be the most likely target) will never in a million years get prosecuted for anything on this site. It's all legal, we could post whatever we wanted without cops busting down our door and tattooing "child-buggerer" on our foreheads.
In that case, should we post the material in question? Is the law the only thing stopping child pornography? Is looking at a photograph of a child in a sexual situation different from seeing a drawing of that same situation? Or seeing that situation in person, for that matter? It could be argued that they are different, but studies show that the human brain reacts to each in the same way. And now, the law of the United States agrees with that.
The real issue is, however, not whether such material will be posted here with impunity; it has already been made clear that it will not. The issue is whether the people who enjoy and request material featuring minors will be accepted or even simply tolerated here. That's not only the job of the moderaters', that's the job of everyone who enjoys this site and wants it to continue. Those people can find other places for what they want -- unfortunately, it is out there -- they don't need to be here and we don't need to accomodate them.
Mastertank1
2nd Level Yellow Feather
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,375
- Points
- 0
Hear, Hear!
Sorry, man! Really.
I agree completely, and publicly apologize for the personal remarks I made about Drew70;HisFlyinFingers said:
Sorry, man! Really.
The way the law REALLY stands in the U.S. and, I believe in the UK is this. If a fictional story has a fictional character (not someone who ever lived or is now living) then there is no law against what is written.
You CAN have an underage girl in a tickling story or even one with sexual themes as long as this is a fictional character.
That said. Here on the TMF, we have a rule. The rule is simple. DON'T DO IT. We don't want any heat brought down on our sanctuary and that's the end of that. If the law ever changes we're conscience free. I once had a series of stories (Shannon) where the character was 17. She needed to be for the plot of the series. I removed her from this site even though it is legal to depict a 17 year old who is a fictional character. I simply had to abide by the rules set down in this PRIVATE forum. Remember, this is not a public institution protected by first ammendment laws. It's Jeff's place. He says no then it's no.
I think there is a lynching mob these days who are out to hang anyone who posts art that has someone younger than the legal age. I have already expressed myself in this matter in past posts. To me, art is art and do what you want. No real people are being victimized so live and let live.
However, I do know that it IS legal to depict minors in tickling and even sexual stories in the U.S, as long as the character is fictional. Remember the book "Lolita"? It's art. Live with it. Here on the TMF it is illegal, that's the rules, 'nuff said, so just get your information right and don't get all up your ass in false facts and emotional diatribes.
Love and Peace
Max
You CAN have an underage girl in a tickling story or even one with sexual themes as long as this is a fictional character.
That said. Here on the TMF, we have a rule. The rule is simple. DON'T DO IT. We don't want any heat brought down on our sanctuary and that's the end of that. If the law ever changes we're conscience free. I once had a series of stories (Shannon) where the character was 17. She needed to be for the plot of the series. I removed her from this site even though it is legal to depict a 17 year old who is a fictional character. I simply had to abide by the rules set down in this PRIVATE forum. Remember, this is not a public institution protected by first ammendment laws. It's Jeff's place. He says no then it's no.
I think there is a lynching mob these days who are out to hang anyone who posts art that has someone younger than the legal age. I have already expressed myself in this matter in past posts. To me, art is art and do what you want. No real people are being victimized so live and let live.
However, I do know that it IS legal to depict minors in tickling and even sexual stories in the U.S, as long as the character is fictional. Remember the book "Lolita"? It's art. Live with it. Here on the TMF it is illegal, that's the rules, 'nuff said, so just get your information right and don't get all up your ass in false facts and emotional diatribes.
Love and Peace
Max
Just a quick question in this thread:
Are posts which say something like, "my brother and I used to have tickle contests when we were kids," also against the rules? An even more subtle case would be stories which say "I can't remember a time when I wasn't ticklish," which implies either that the author was tickled as a kid or has forgotten his/her childhood.
It seems hard to me to define the boundary for legal purposes; it reminds me of the stories I used to hear about schools not letting parents take pictures at track and field day because you never know if an unsavory character was there taking pictures for his sordid purposes.
Are posts which say something like, "my brother and I used to have tickle contests when we were kids," also against the rules? An even more subtle case would be stories which say "I can't remember a time when I wasn't ticklish," which implies either that the author was tickled as a kid or has forgotten his/her childhood.
It seems hard to me to define the boundary for legal purposes; it reminds me of the stories I used to hear about schools not letting parents take pictures at track and field day because you never know if an unsavory character was there taking pictures for his sordid purposes.
Don't you believe the bottom line is this: If it seems illegal it is illegal. I see nothing wrong with sharing stories about being tickled as a kid. There was a very long and successful post here about just that. However, it was ruled to be taken down. It doesn't matter why. What matters is that this is NOT an anarchy, democracy, or anything like that. It is someone's 'home' and they make the rules while we are here enjoying the hospitality.
Make the posts you feel, in your gut are not inappropriate and, if it is against the rules, it will be altered or deleted. This is to protect the site, nothing personal.
Max
Make the posts you feel, in your gut are not inappropriate and, if it is against the rules, it will be altered or deleted. This is to protect the site, nothing personal.
Max
TicklishLurker
4th Level Red Feather
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 1,949
- Points
- 0
Techinally Max, you're wrong. It is illegal. (Not to mention disgusting.)
See, you can be ordered by law to become a registered sex offender just for disposing of your Playboys where little kids can get at them.
All it takes is for one of the psycho religious types to follow the link from Wikipedia and see the requests for underaged (even if fictional) charater Kim Possible and we all end up investigated and forced to register.
This is a sexual fetish website. Requesting underaged characters is not only illegal but morally repugnant.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I for one don't want to be labeled as a sex offender for the rest of my life. Especially considering how much I hate pedophiles and believe there should be a death penalty for them.
Don't request it, don't post it. If you see underaged characters like Kim Possible, Drake & Josh, Mandy, Misty & May from Pokemon, etc, requested don't say "Oh, well they're fictional, it doesn't matter." It does matter. Report it.
See, you can be ordered by law to become a registered sex offender just for disposing of your Playboys where little kids can get at them.
All it takes is for one of the psycho religious types to follow the link from Wikipedia and see the requests for underaged (even if fictional) charater Kim Possible and we all end up investigated and forced to register.
This is a sexual fetish website. Requesting underaged characters is not only illegal but morally repugnant.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I for one don't want to be labeled as a sex offender for the rest of my life. Especially considering how much I hate pedophiles and believe there should be a death penalty for them.
Don't request it, don't post it. If you see underaged characters like Kim Possible, Drake & Josh, Mandy, Misty & May from Pokemon, etc, requested don't say "Oh, well they're fictional, it doesn't matter." It does matter. Report it.
wendynpeter
2nd Level Red Feather
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2005
- Messages
- 1,424
- Points
- 0
drew70 said:
Drew - I could not disagree more. First of all, if someone has a sexual fetish and is visiting a website where even the idea of minors is involved for the purpose of catering to people with that fetish -- well, that is far from innocent.
drew70 said:
Well, in my opinion, we are discussing the topic in a reasonable way. I don't see any drama at all -- I do see people trying to dismiss or downplay the point. But the point is very real, so blow it off at your own peril ...
And besides -- why should the law even come into the discussion? Were the law not in place, would that make it OK to involve minors in this sort of thing?
I left TT altogether in part because of all the underage cartoons (and occasionally, even a real child). A huge number of the folks who are members (and most of the very prominant members) there see absolutely nothing wrong with that stuff. Substituting little alien cartoon kids for real ones just shows me the lengths to which some people will go in order to be aroused by inappropriately young things being sexual. I think people like that are at least developing pedophilic attitudes and behaviors, and some stand a good chance of moving on to the real thing.
I came here because I think Jeff and Myriads have it exactly right.
Last edited:
stampstock
TMF Master
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2001
- Messages
- 982
- Points
- 16
Very well done, Tank...
And there certainly could be nothing wrong with policing ourselves (for lack of a better word) for the a) sake of keeping this the adult-only forum it is, and b) keeping it alive and healthy for us all. Laws are laws, and as far as I have seen it, this forum has sought to comply with federal internet laws while allowing all to use the forum as a freedom of expression site. It would only be the radical who would throw a monkey wrench into the works by trying to sneak in a picture of an established cartoon character, within an established age group. This is what the government would use to interpret, and that it all they need to do to remove this forum, an interpretation.
Every so often, to the best of my memory, which sucks, there is a post regarding the security, the fundamentals, and/or the very threat of shut down of this forum. We cycle through these issues because some folks aren't taking it seriously. I urge all who waver to re-read the RULES of this forum, as they are permanently posted within each individual section. Please, for the sake of our space.
And there certainly could be nothing wrong with policing ourselves (for lack of a better word) for the a) sake of keeping this the adult-only forum it is, and b) keeping it alive and healthy for us all. Laws are laws, and as far as I have seen it, this forum has sought to comply with federal internet laws while allowing all to use the forum as a freedom of expression site. It would only be the radical who would throw a monkey wrench into the works by trying to sneak in a picture of an established cartoon character, within an established age group. This is what the government would use to interpret, and that it all they need to do to remove this forum, an interpretation.
Every so often, to the best of my memory, which sucks, there is a post regarding the security, the fundamentals, and/or the very threat of shut down of this forum. We cycle through these issues because some folks aren't taking it seriously. I urge all who waver to re-read the RULES of this forum, as they are permanently posted within each individual section. Please, for the sake of our space.
