The Doll Forum

All nude photos of real people doing actual sexually explicit conduct will be removed by midnight tonight from the Doll Album and the Doll Forum because we don't have the records required pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75.

No more nude photos of real people doing actual sexually explicit conduct and no links to them on any other site.

Only Dolls, folks.
It is the Doll Forum. Life is good.

Must be those darn "morally correct" Republicans in Congress (good thing for them corporate payoffs aren't a sin). Better watch out! Next thing you know is they will outlaw marrying anyone you aren't related to. Maybe they'll go to stoning anyone who has sex outside of marriage while they're at it! I sure am glad God gave them the authority to decide what is right and wrong for everyone, things are so much better since they've been in power.

This law is alot of work
http://openmindmedia.com/records/

Will I be able to have pictures of me with my doll if I wear my Big Bird costume?
Just kidding Bill, I understand the forums concerns, no one here wants to see you recieving your pension checks in the pen. I really enjoy seeing the pictures of owners with their dolls though. What a shame.

I wouldn't think that the owners with their dolls would be affected. Wouldn't it only be people with other people?

Doll's with their owners isn't really sex on a technical level, it's really advanced masturbation.

Darkland

---
Chiaki's Gallery:
http://www.dollalbum.com/gallery/chiaki

Masturbation is not allowed under the old law without age information by the producers of the photos but now web sites have to have the information.

It is just about real people for now so don't masturbate in public unless you can prove your age. Do it in the sanctuary of a church.

I'm far from an expert on this subject, but I did take a little law in school.

This entire subject screams of saber rattling to me. There's a critical note that I got out of all that was quoted about this law. That basically this thing has already been in effect for 10 years, they're just sharpening the definition and piling on ludicrous penalties and unreasonable burdens of proof to try to scare the crap out of people.

But if you look at what was quoted, in the ten years that the earlier form of the law was around, the DOJ never ONCE prosecuted a single case under it. It's like trying to stop music swapping and file sharing. It's totally impractical from a prosecution standpoint, cause EVERYONE is doing it. You can't arrest or jail the whole country.

It seems to me the law itself has no teeth. They just want to make a big noise about it existing in an effort to frighten people into complying with a ludicrous requirement. Actual enforcement is nearly impossible, it's the fear of being "made an example of" that is the only true effect of such a law.

Hey, whaddya know. Our government is using terror tactics on US. When direct confrontation fails, scare the crap out of them.

Isn't that a cheery thought.

Anyway. Even if every single member of the federal government was reassigned to try to enforce this, it couldn't be done. It's everywhere. It's like banning alcohol, you can't stop something everyone is doing and everyone loves to do, except a small but noisy minority.

The odds of anyone in particular being picked on is like winning the lottery jackpot in reverse. You have to be THAT unlucky for them to even try anything. You are in vastly more danger just driving to work than you'd ever be from this law. Actually you are far more likely to be struck by lightning in any given year than you are to be prosecuted under this law.

And chances are the first person they go after will, by necessity, be the worst offenders, meaning some huge porn producer, who already has a fleet of lawyers that will get it shot down, as it's clearly unconstitutional.

The government has tried this shit before. It just doesn't work from an actual enforcement standpoint. It's the fear instilled by the law that is their only truly effective weapon. I don't want to suggest anything that would get anyone into trouble, but to a certain degree, allowing ourselves to be scared into making a lot of radical and unreasonable changes because of this thing basically means they won. They scared us into complying with an unjust law.

My own adult website is all cartoons, so I don't have anything to worry about personally. But even if it wasn't, I wouldn't change a thing. A government and it's citizens should be working together to build a better world. This smacks of a government working against it's own people, which must never be accepted.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Darkland
---
Chiaki's Gallery:
http://www.dollalbum.com/gallery/chiaki

I guess this means Sexy U. is doomed to be burned to the ground to protect the children from sexual images.

Oh well, at least children will still be able to get slasher flicks made by "legitamate" producers. It's so much more healthy for them to see pretty young women tortured and murdered for pleasure.

Isn't it great to live in such a moral society?

And these people think there's something wrong with us.

Mahtek & Phoebe

What a terrible pity.
Most of the albums I've posted of Tina are sexually explicit with me in them having sex with her. I had an album in the works that also has my girlfriend in it. So all the work creating, setting up and executing these photo shoots was wasted. I'm really disappointed. Do I here Canada beconing...
I'll put the albums at Yahoo and let everyone know when (and yes I'm aware of the pitfalls of putting them on Yahoo).
Moon

Darkland wrote: My own adult website is all cartoons, so I don't have anything to worry about personally.

Ahh!! You Have A Cartoon Site !!?? Kool!!, Can I See !!??

Ramiko@AOL.Com

June 19th,2005
6:02pm

Yes, what will Yahoo do with its groups to comply with the new rules. Will they dump the groups with sexually explicit photos???

Perhaps it will be turn out to be a big scare tactic that goes nowhere, but there's no sense in taking any risks during the onset of these new regulations. As with the legislation against free music downloads, I have a feeling the gov't and prosecutors will make a big deal about it and flood the media with high-profile cases and debates until the whole thing eventually blows over out of it's own inefficiency.

Darkland wrote:It seems to me the law itself has no teeth. They just want to make a big noise about it existing in an effort to frighten people into complying with a ludicrous requirement.

Each violation can result in 10 years in prison. I think the law is off of the charts when it come to cruel and unusual punishment.

10 years in prison due to lack of paperwork on one photo, and it doesn't matter if the person in the photo is of age or not. Life in prison for a page full.

This law has teeth.

That wasn't really what I meant, Ishtaria.

I wasn't saying that the penalties are a joke, I'm saying that the law is SO out of proportion, that it is unenforceable. The moment they tried to prosecute anyone on this, it would be overturned by almost any jury, because it's so unfair.

I mean there are literally tens of thousands of adult sites on the net. They can't possibly go after even 1/10th of one percent.

Personally I'd much prefer it if everyone here were able to treat this entire thing with the total contempt it deserves, and change nothing. Act like the thing doesn't exist, that is victory over such totaliarianistic scare tactics. They can't prosecute this nonsense, it's the fear the existence of such a thing creates that is the only true weapon they have to employ. That's why they jacked the penalties through the roof. On paper they can make it anything they want to try and frighten people, if they have no intention of pursuing it, it gives no court the opportunity to overturn it.

No jury in america is going to give a 10 year sentence for a paperwork mistake. The DOJ knows this. It's pure governmental terror tactics.

It pains me really to see that the scare factor has affected you and Bill. Not to mention deeply offends me that the government stoops to such underhanded methods against good people such as yourselves, just sharing the love with friends. As I said in my last post, this smacks of government fighting against the will of its own citizens, which must never be knuckled under to. In your place I'd feel it was my moral duty to resist this orwellian big brother crap.

However, that said, it IS your and Bill's site, and you must do what you feel is appropriate. I'm sure I can speak for everyone here when I say, whether we agree with your approach to dealing with this or not, we'll all support your decision.

Darkland

Actually, I'll bet there will be a couple of show cases right off the bat: Just like the IRS does every few years.

Some guy who copys and reposts images from the net onto his website will really go to prison to scare the rest of us straight.

It will be unfair, but like the seatbelt law there will be NO mercy!

Too bad the internet police can't go after identity theft of some real crime-that might be a usefull service.

I think this law is designed to shut down all the free services out there.