It is currently Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:29 am

By visiting this website and viewing the pages within, you accept and agree to be bound by and comply with the Rules Of Conduct and Terms Of Use of this website.


Official TDF Rules & TOS


Please click on either selection to view: Rules Of Conduct | Terms Of Use




 Page 5 of 5 [ 69 posts ]  
Search for:
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
   
 Post subject: Re: 18 U.S.C. section 2257 compliance.
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:11 pm 
Doll Mentor
Doll Mentor

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:21 pm
Posts: 1300
Location: The Frozen North, USA
Wow, I hadn't realized that there was any point where we could have seen pictures of real people doing explicit activities with their dolls. Personally, I think this place is better off for it. I mean, this is a classy, classy thread, and...well, to be quite frank...it would be a bit sleazy if people could post pics of them making love with their ladies. I don't particularly want to see that. I'm here for the dolls themselves.

Pfft, and what are the standards for proving a doll is 18? There really should be some written standards to enable doll manufacturers, to, say make a Mini Love Doll or Candy8Teen with something less than a DD cup. Just because a doll is short doesn't mean it's a minor. And, from what little I've seen, if a doll (usually from Asia) is supposed to be a minor, then it looks like a minor. Ugh... Both things disgust me, the fact that we need 'proof' and the fact that companies make dolls modeled after children. Ugh... Did I mention 'ugh...'?



_____________________________
[b]We will start anew, on here, soon. We can't wait!
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 18 U.S.C. section 2257 compliance.
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:36 pm 
Retired Server Admin
Retired Server Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:00 am
Posts: 592
Oiy, people can be so reactionary and clueless about the truth of a law. Time for a rant here. This is directed at all of the posters who think there's some great first amendment violation here.

First of all, 18 U.S.C. section 2257 was not created to limit any free speech nor to shield minors from exposure to porn. I remember when this went into effect. The law was created before the internet came into being. Simply put, it requires anyone who makes porn to have absolute proof that the model is over 18 and to keep records of such in case of a controversy. The reason it was created was due to the Traci Lords scandal. Remember her? A 15 year old girl who used a fake ID to get into porn? The new law was made for a few basic reasons. To protect producers from making child porn unknowingly, to protect underage models from sexual exploitation in the porn industry, to protect distributors from selling child porn unknowingly, and to protect consumers from buying child porn. Before this law went into effect, there may have been a lot more underage models out there besides Traci Lords that nobody knew about. Having info that proves the model is over 18 keeps people safer from prosecution.

Please people, don't be blowing smoke about something unless you get the facts. There's no conspiracy here, no matter what you'd like to believe.


 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 18 U.S.C. section 2257 compliance.
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:08 pm 
Doll Mentor
Doll Mentor

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:21 pm
Posts: 1300
Location: The Frozen North, USA
Conspiracy? What conspiracy?

Attachment:
trust_no_one_smoking_man.jpg
trust_no_one_smoking_man.jpg [ 45.62 KiB | Viewed 3960 times ]


Spirit:
I should say, though, that I did not understand the law. Thank you for clearing that up for myself and the other misinformed posters out there. Laws and politics are not my strong suit, so I tend to assume the worst when I hear about restrictions and what I perceive falsely as obstructions to free speech.

That law sounds perfectly sound.



_____________________________
[b]We will start anew, on here, soon. We can't wait!
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 18 U.S.C. section 2257 compliance.
PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 7:32 pm 
Active Member
Active Member

Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:11 am
Posts: 141
IMO, you described the law's intent brilliantly. You do see to come off, to me anyways [perception], as if you believe that a law's intent is how it will always be enforced / believing otherwise == crazy, in which case I point to history. The fact, for example, that somebody can get put on the sex offender's list for getting caught pissing in a bush is one example. You're right to insist we don't overreact, but we SHOULD be vigilant.


 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 18 U.S.C. section 2257 compliance.
PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:14 pm 
Retired Server Admin
Retired Server Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:00 am
Posts: 592
TFreeman wrote:
IMO, you described the law's intent brilliantly. You do see to come off, to me anyways [perception], as if you believe that a law's intent is how it will always be enforced / believing otherwise == crazy, in which case I point to history. The fact, for example, that somebody can get put on the sex offender's list for getting caught pissing in a bush is one example. You're right to insist we don't overreact, but we SHOULD be vigilant.



Wow, that's quite a leap of assumptions based on one post, and highly insulting. I don't need a history lesson about law intent and reality. The point I'm making about this law is that it's not just some stupid law meant to censor anyone, but meant to protect children, producers, distributors, and consumers from child porn. It was made WAY before anyone even heard of the internet (around 1987 or so), so everyone's ridiculous conspiracy theories about this law to censor the internet is way off base.


 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 18 U.S.C. section 2257 compliance.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:56 pm 
Contributing Poster
Contributing Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:00 am
Posts: 28
Wow...

Zombification! What a great internet tradition! :lol:

Thank-you, LadyPeridot for digging this thread out of the depths of the distant past. So many familiar names and personalities that have now vanished into the mists. Only six years and yet, so much has happened.

Thank-you SpiritfireM for the much needed and very accurate clarification. I'd forgotten that this law came into affect in response to the Traci Lords scandal. Heck, I've even forgotten about the scandal itself!

Although it is against excruciating emotional resistance, I will not comment on the politics or the conspiracies. Besides, once I got started I'd wind up writing an entire book!



_____________________________
I live in my own little world, but it's okay, they know me here.
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 18 U.S.C. section 2257 compliance.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:25 pm 
Doll Oracle
Doll Oracle
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 7346
Christine2 wrote:
Another GOP small government idea....


OH! I love it! That's really kicking them in the b***s! Can I use that sometime? :haha4: :haha4: :haha4: :haha4: :haha4: :haha4:



_____________________________
“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
~ George Washington

Please do not send me any Private Messages as I cannot respond; the moderators of this group have prohibited me from using PM since Nov. 2014.
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 18 U.S.C. section 2257 compliance.
PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:50 pm 
Senior Member
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 2:37 pm
Posts: 455
Location: Canada
Vive la France! erm... Oh! Canada... show me your Beaver! lolz.



_____________________________
I'm Just Gonna put an "OUT OF ORDER" Sign on my Forehead, and call it a Day...

The Residents of Aberdare Manor:
Jenny_D - WM Style 160cm - 86cm Bust
Jennifer_D - WM Style 160cm - 92cm Bust
Alexandra_D - WM165 K-cup from RLSD
Jaquelynne_D - WM Style 155cm - 110cm Bust
Nymphodora - WM165 K-cup from WM
Fleurette - YL 158-P2 Pregnant
Jonathan_D - A JYDoll 160cm Male From ASDolls
Olivia_D - WM 140cm - D Cup

Maintenance: Eye Brows, Eye Lashes, Eyelids & Makeup
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: 18 U.S.C. section 2257 compliance.
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:09 am 
Contributing Poster
Contributing Poster

Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:02 am
Posts: 37
Well I will be very carefull to not show even explicit photo's of the doll.


 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 5 of 5 [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who Is Online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

Chatting users:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum