ClumsyMonkey.net

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/24/us_law_2257/

Discuss.

*shrugs*
Porn is icky.

That headline is very misleading. It makes sense that you have to prove your subjects are of legal age.

I kind of figured that was already a given with porn. Because obviously if they couldn't prove it, it would be considered child porn. So I guess they're just tightening up the rules.

I think it's fine. A lot of underage kids post photos of themselves online that they REALLY shouldn't be.

The thing is that most people who post child porn, don't use commerical ways of doing it, they use underground ways and such.

Yeah, but this rule isn't for those people. Those people are breaking the law knowingly. This is for all the stuff that slips by because nobody even knows that it's child porn that they're looking at.

Good point.

Yeah, like girls/couples who go on Webcam and crap like that.

i dont get it, so say Aria Giovanni and Brianna Banks have a go at it, is that classified as child porn???

that comment may sound stupid but i read the article over 50 times, and i still cant get my head (no pun intended) around it...

who?

I can just see some Sexy Grandmas site being rapped for not providing proof of age

i know

i hope not
i LOVE Sexy Grandmas sites.........


nothing more sexy then an old unattractive woman

old unattractive men!

lando clearly wins

totally.

there are no winners here, only people who lost less