Club Seventeen, Teen Test, etc.
Basementchild
Dutch teenage girl's site, Club Seventeen. My question is: What is the
legal status of this stuff? Is it kiddie porn in the USA?
Huh?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
** rec.arts.movies.erotica FAQ at http://www.rame.net/faq **
** internet adult film database at http://www.iafd.com **
Ramsey Ramsamoedj
> I see that ALS Scan, http://www.alsscan.com, has a banner link for the
> Dutch teenage girl's site, Club Seventeen. My question is: What is the
> legal status of this stuff? Is it kiddie porn in the USA?
It's all 18+ now but they have used some younger
boys and girls (16 and 17) in the past.
I know a girl from work who worked for Seventeen
when she was just 16.
I think they changed their policy and went to 18+ only
after the pedophile scandal in Belgium (Dutroix).
I believe they should change their name in Club Eighteen :-)
Ramsey.
someone
news:rame.968715604p6758@bash...
> I see that ALS Scan, http://www.alsscan.com, has a banner link for the
> Dutch teenage girl's site, Club Seventeen. My question is: What is the
> legal status of this stuff? Is it kiddie porn in the USA?
Why would it be? Just because the word "seventeen"
appears in a company name? What if it were called
"Club Twelve"? Would you automatically assume everyone
is twelve years old? Nowhere in any of their movies,
magazines or promotional material do they say anything
about the girls' ages (other than that they are over 18).
And it is obvious that all the girls are at least 18 and usually
well beyond.
But it apparently was a marketing coup to use the name
"Club Seventeen" because everyone thinks (and they do
nothing to dispel the myth) that the girls are 17 years old.
Taksan
but I think they are not on the site.
Alex Kern (owner of ALS) started off in the business
as a kiddie porn scanner anyhow so I would say he is
well versed in the laws and would not advertise anything
that could be considered illegal as he's very careful of
all the legal aspects because of his past.
"Basementchild" <baseme...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:rame.968715604p6758@bash...
Snow Leopard
in the US a site which you know has, through it's own declaration, underage
imagery.
Whether or not they actually are, ie, truth in advertising, is not a debatable
point. Remember, it is what the prosecuter can get the jury to believe and when
there is written evidence that says the models are underage, welll that
certainly would make the job easier, wouldn't it?
To which comes the question of why? There appears to be thousands of models
on the net. I think for the most part we are talking about just imagery
here, not anything beyound that. So since it is all for imagination, is it
so bad to find a model who can play the high school junior legally as oppose to
one who actually is? Ie, the fantasy that uses Alyson Hannigan, even four years
ago, may be questionable in mind of some peoples, but it is legal. Or say
someone who we've seen nude but could be in high school. 80's Playmate Linda
Rhys Vaughn. Possible for a fantasy, but she was 22 when she did her pictoral.
There is youth and innocence to fuel many a fantasy, such as what may be
achieved by putting a stuffed animal in with the model. That is undeniable. But
a fantasy is not reality. It is what the mind wants it to be. Many a model can
fit such. So why does it need to use the picture of someone who is not of legal
age when someone who is of legal age can fit the bill?
How things change over time; in the 80's, leg warmers and terry headbands
could add to the sex of the matter, but in these times, the sight of a sweat
band could cause its dismissal without a second question!
Some may argue that such desire comes from 'possessing' forbidden fruit. It's
not forbidden fruit, it is deadly fruit. It may be legal in other countries,
but like so many things of such nature, having it this country is just plain
stupid!
-Traci
(how things change: then and now: it meant a whole different thing when Bailey
Quarters had a rainbow on the front of her desk/I think it is safe to have my
70's black light poster, Building a Rainbow, up in my own home, but still
have a slightly nagging thought to it)
Basementchild
tak...@nospamhotmail.com wrote:
> There ARE certain suspect titles from that company
> but I think they are not on the site.
> Alex Kern (owner of ALS) started off in the business
> as a kiddie porn scanner anyhow so I would say he is
> well versed in the laws and would not advertise anything
> that could be considered illegal as he's very careful of
> all the legal aspects because of his past.
>
wink. I only bring it up because I've seen a bunch of the Chic
Magazine videos, Seventeen, Teeners from Holland, Teen Test, etc., and
I know enough about female anatomy to see that many of the girls in
these videos are kids. Seventeen would be old in some of the Teen Test
videos, if you ask me.
So, since I believe that we are dealing with images of girls who must
have been underage when they were photographed, what is the legal
status of this stuff in the States?
Most of these pictures and videos were made back in '91-'93 or so,
which means that the girls are 25 or 26 today. Does that matter?
Basementchild
Basementchild
th0...@nyssa.swt.edu wrote:
> Quite frankly, I think you would be a bloody fool to intentionally
access from
> in the US a site which you know has, through it's own declaration,
underage
> imagery.
I believe that ALS Scan is a reputable outfit. They have a high
quality product, so why would they link to a kiddie porn site?
I have no doubt that the Chic Magazine videos had very young girls in
them. They were all over the stores around here in '94, with a little
sticker that proclaimed the models to be 18 or older. Nonsense! Some
of the girls in these tapes could have passed for 12!
I think that biology has more to do with a man's desire for young women
than the forbidden fruit aspect. Nulliparous, nubile, healthy young
women are mating material. That's how the Goddess intended things.
Seed planting is the prime directive. Virgin soil is the best.
Basementchild
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Snow Leopard
>Seed planting is the prime directive. Virgin soil is the best.
And lawyers are sharks, perhaps driven my primal urges, but at any rate, they
like to make kills, using anything to do it.
As far as using a line of defence as "well, they may have been underage when
filmed, but they are 22 or more now", then you are ignoring history. Let's use
Traci Lords as an example. Can you buy, say "drive in girls" today? No, because
it was made when she was underage and it doesn't matter how old she is today.
Tons of her videos were destroyed in the case broke yet, using the defense
line, they could have been stored for just a few weeks because she was then of
legal age. But they weren't, because it is not a viable defense.
Look, it is a hot subject that can burn. The seventeen may just be a name and
their models may be 18 and above. But if they aren't and it can be proven, that
the woman on the film was not above 18 at the time, and especially if you
realize this, then you are a fool to engage in such actions. The conviction
from such charges is not something that is tossed off. It follows one for years
and communities shun such.
Be an adult and thing with reason.
-Traci
dirty-dan
older Dutch magazine that has been around since the 70's.
Almost all Euro content from this periods contained materials in
the 70's that included models 16 as that was the legal age of consent
almost throughout Europe then (just as 18 was here) But Studio
Seventeen now uses and has used for quite a few years models
over 18, and run the site in compliance with U.S. laws, not only
to include e-commerce from the U.S. but it is well believed that
throughout Europe laws are slowly changing under pressure from
the U.S. that will cause the modeling laws to mirror U.S. laws.
So why build a library of materials that might not be usable in the
distant future.
Our SweetHearts films are labeled for U.S, sales, they are 100%
compliant with all U.S. requirements, they are also sold in PAL
under the name SchoolGirls Holiday in Europe by Studio-Seventeen.
A great deal of the mythos has been created on the net itself
over the years just with the social differences in the past between
U.S. and Europe.
See this question and conversation about 3 times a year and always
amuses us.....
*************************************************************************
HornyRob See our Webpage at: http://www.hornyrob.com
Products, Uncensored Usenet, Adult Webmaster Support
Exclusive Owner of all 4 Anna films in NTSC Format ~On Site~
Trademark and Copyright Infringement Rewards: www.hornyrob.com/copyright
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Serial # 19781010
use are 18 or older, while older products state that "all actors are
of legal age" in Holland meaning 16 and older and therefor banned in
some other countries. It's clear they used these young models in the
more softcore productions(Nymphs of Nature, Studio Seventeen) as well
as in some hardcore movies.
Taksan
Alex Kern (ALS owner) knows the risks...he started out as a
kiddie porn scanner himself and dropped it in favour of shooting
older girls with small tits and bald beavers because he was worried
about the potential legal problems. Remember the first 8 ALS CD's
were all kiddie porn pics...everyone seems to forget ALSscans origions
now they are successful but all the ALS stuff sprang from the child porn
stuff.
"> I believe that ALS Scan is a reputable outfit. They have a high
> quality product, so why would they link to a kiddie porn site?
>
Post rejected on RAME?...post it to alt.cult-movies.erotica instead
..the unmoderated alternative.
Taksan
a) Owned outside US jurisdiction
b) Compliant with USC 2257 in only
Videos released in the US
c) Quite legally using 16 and 17 yo girls in many
of its productions not released in the US.
It doesn't matter how old they are now only that
they were underage at the time of the production.
Only in the US does these strange laws preventing
otherwise legally and physically mature females
from exercising their right to work exist.
"Basementchild" <baseme...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:rame.968805619p21811@bash...
DennBell
> older Dutch magazine that has been around since the 70's.
>
> Almost all Euro content from this periods contained materials in
> the 70's that included models 16 as that was the legal age of consent
> almost throughout Europe then (just as 18 was here) But Studio
> Seventeen now uses and has used for quite a few years models
> over 18, and run the site in compliance with U.S. laws, not only
> to include e-commerce from the U.S. but it is well believed that
> throughout Europe laws are slowly changing under pressure from
> the U.S. that will cause the modeling laws to mirror U.S. laws.
> So why build a library of materials that might not be usable in the
> distant future.
>
> Our SweetHearts films are labeled for U.S, sales, they are 100%
> compliant with all U.S. requirements, they are also sold in PAL
> under the name SchoolGirls Holiday in Europe by Studio-Seventeen.
>
> A great deal of the mythos has been created on the net itself
> over the years just with the social differences in the past between
> U.S. and Europe.
>
While we're on the subject does anyone know why Dutch teen videos always
have the girls wearing sweat bands on their heads?
I don't think I 've seen a porno Dutch girl without one of those stupid
things on their heads.
Ribald Poet
>I've seen a bunch of the Chic Magazine videos, Seventeen, Teeners from
Holland, Teen Test, etc., and I know enough about female anatomy to see that
many of the girls in these videos are kids. Seventeen would be old in some of
the Teen Test
girls who must have been underage when they were photographed, what is the
legal status of this stuff in the States? Most of these pictures and videos
Does that matter?<<
Very simple&straightforward there, basementchild; it is ILLEGAL to possess
pornographic images of children under the age of 18 in the states, period. It
matters not that the pics were made awhile ago and the females are of legal age
now--- possess such pics/videos, risk prosecution. Really as simple as that.
Exstasy, 'ludes and the requisite toot;
sold the gal on the notion,
of two dicks up her 'chute.
When the scene concluded...
she let out a wail---
"Next time I want smack & some roofies,
before I stuff two cocks up my tail!"
R.Poet
dirty-dan
any copies you se offered here are pirated and in violation of both
copyright and federal laws. Many shops in NYC sell duplicates of
such as these, animal sex videos, and all other types of extreme
Euro sex items, and all are illegal. There are also operations that
pop up mail order such as Carnival Video a few years back doing
such as this, selling copies of Euro films converted to NTSC with
a color copies box insert in a plastic box, they too are breaking
the law and such bootleg copies have long since pissed off
Studio-Seventeen.
All media being discussed here are also a decade old, and do not
represent the current items being sold to the U.S.... for example
with website compliance, they spent a small fortune in Russia
requiring the models to get photo IDs to meet the requirements of
18-USC-2257... only form of photo ID is a passport and costs more
than what an average worker in Russia makes in 3-4 months.
Steve Workman is the U.S. attorney, also the attorney for Ynot
adult website network and he carefully sees they run a clean
operation.
*************************************************************************
HornyRob See our Webpage at: http://www.hornyrob.com
Products, Uncensored Usenet, Adult Webmaster Support
Exclusive Owner of all 4 Anna films in NTSC Format ~On Site~
Trademark and Copyright Infringement Rewards: www.hornyrob.com/copyright
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Torris
wrote:
>The reason ALS wouldn't link to a kiddie porn site is because
>Alex Kern (ALS owner) knows the risks...he started out as a
>kiddie porn scanner himself
By kiddie porn do you mean 8-10 year olds? Is Kern a US citizen?
Torris
"Rehab is for quitters"
Basementchild
> over the years just with the social differences in the past between
> U.S. and Europe.
>
> See this question and conversation about 3 times a year and always
> amuses us.....
It comes up because there I was looking at pictures of girls who might
have been underage. I didn't get a satisfactory answer from ALS Scan,
so I turned to you people. I'm not into kiddie porn, and it bothered
me to think that I might be committing a crime, just sitting there in
the privacy of my own home. I think that all of us raincoaters are a
little paranoid--a good thing.
Even when the tapes were sold locally and had a disclaimer on them, I
didn't believe it.
Basementchild
> While we're on the subject does anyone know why Dutch teen videos
always
> have the girls wearing sweat bands on their heads?
>
> I don't think I 've seen a porno Dutch girl without one of those
stupid
> things on their heads.
It was an image that was everywhere in the late 80s ans early 90s.
Television was full of exercise shows with women in sweatbands and leg
warmers. It was part of the fitness craze that was big at the time.
US porn was full of that too.
There was an exercise show on Show Time that was really hot! Does
anybody recall it? I can't remember what it was called. I vividly
remember the scene in "48 Hours" where Eddie Murphy, fresh from prison,
looks at a TV with this show on it and says, "What's happened to
television?"
Those were the days!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
someone
> There was an exercise show on Show Time that was really hot! Does
> anybody recall it? I can't remember what it was called.
That was "Aerobicize." I had a major hardon for the lithe little
blonde with the srimped hair in that show. She reminded me
of a blonde Lauri Smith. YUM!
It was produced by the same Ron Harris who planted the
phony "supermodel eggs for auction" story last year. You can
still buy tapes of "Aerobicize" as well as a lot of other
softcore porn from his website at http://www.ronharris.com/fra_main.html
test...@stagleys.demon.co.uk
> Nowhere in any of their movies,
> magazines or promotional material do they say anything
> about the girls' ages (other than that they are over 18).
Actually their mags from about 10 years ago used to have
ages of the girls in the photosets. Most were 16 or 17 then.
Now they are all over 18.
Andrew
Doctor...@webtv.net
show/filler, named either Beth or Bess, who later played Linda
Hamilton's roommate in "The Terminator."
"Monkey. It's what's for dinner."
dirty-dan
had companies in the US and Europe selling publications with image
pulls and and videos pirated and it allowed them to tag media and
made for prompt copyright ID... sorta a branding instrument before the
~digicode~ era to thwart piracy and also now a style they are associated with.
In article <rame.968929208p9926@bash>, baseme...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> While we're on the subject does anyone know why Dutch teen videos
>always
>> have the girls wearing sweat bands on their heads?
>>
>> I don't think I 've seen a porno Dutch girl without one of those
>stupid
>> things on their heads.
>
>It was an image that was everywhere in the late 80s ans early 90s.
>Television was full of exercise shows with women in sweatbands and leg
>warmers. It was part of the fitness craze that was big at the time.
>US porn was full of that too.
>
>There was an exercise show on Show Time that was really hot! Does
>anybody recall it? I can't remember what it was called. I vividly
>remember the scene in "48 Hours" where Eddie Murphy, fresh from prison,
>looks at a TV with this show on it and says, "What's happened to
>television?"
>
>Those were the days!
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ** rec.arts.movies.erotica FAQ at http://www.rame.net/faq **
> ** internet adult film database at http://www.iafd.com **
>
*************************************************************************
HornyRob See our Webpage at: http://www.hornyrob.com
Products, Uncensored Usenet, Adult Webmaster Support
Exclusive Owner of all 4 Anna films in NTSC Format ~On Site~
Trademark and Copyright Infringement Rewards: www.hornyrob.com/copyright
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Snow Leopard
Single or trios of women bouncing around without much support. Mmmmmm,
got a few of those tapes (and least know where those are located).
As far as headbands and leg warmers. The terry headbands are probably quite in
the yuck line, but not headbands themselves. What you see in fashion you can
probably add to porn. Headbands of one type or another are forever showing up
in fashion photos, on tv shows. They aren't terry but jeweled, thin, or
woven and the biggest thing is that they aren't consistent, always there. Every
once in a while, yes, but it shouldn't be constant.
Leg warmers. Hey, I've got lots of them, but then again, I dance from time to
time, love them when biking in cold winters (which we haven't seen in Texas for
a few years). But for porn? Depends. From ankle to midthigh, they do have some
effect, an angle to make the legs or the body sexier. I'd put it down that they
have the same affect as a garter belt and stockings with no panties. How do I
know that they are sexy? Because a stand or two has told me when I wore them.
They aren't in the same class as the garter belt, in so many ways, though.
Garter belts will probably never go out of some fashion. But provided they
aren't overdone, done in the right kind of environment, they can have their
moments.
Of course, having the girl in/out of a crop top, bike shorts, but keeping her
socks and reeboks on has a great affect, too!
-Traci
Taksan
thousands of scans of kids I'd guess
these were made in the early-mid 90's.
The first dozen ALS CD's were all this stuff.
Yeah he is a US citizen
He lives in a Mansion in Maryland bought with
the millions he has made from Alsscan.com
and its associated video and Cd sales.
"Torris" <tor...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:rame.968908808p7843@bash...
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 07:20:05, "Taksan" <tak...@nospamhotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The reason ALS wouldn't link to a kiddie porn site is because
> >Alex Kern (ALS owner) knows the risks...he started out as a
> >kiddie porn scanner himself
>
> By kiddie porn do you mean 8-10 year olds? Is Kern a US citizen?
>
>
>
>
> Torris
>
> "Rehab is for quitters"
Torris
wrote:
>Yep...I'm talking preteen stuff...
>thousands of scans of kids I'd guess
>these were made in the early-mid 90's.
>The first dozen ALS CD's were all this stuff.
>Yeah he is a US citizen
>He lives in a Mansion in Maryland bought with
>the millions he has made from Alsscan.com
>and its associated video and Cd sales.
How does he not wind up in jail since child pornography is a federal
offense. And decent parents have gone to jail for taking a picture of
little Suzie naked in the tub
Torris
"Rehab is for quitters"
Basementchild
tak...@nospamhotmail.com wrote:
> Yep...I'm talking preteen stuff...
> thousands of scans of kids I'd guess
> these were made in the early-mid 90's.
> The first dozen ALS CD's were all this stuff.
> Yeah he is a US citizen
> He lives in a Mansion in Maryland bought with
> the millions he has made from Alsscan.com
> and its associated video and Cd sales.
>
> > >Alex Kern (ALS owner) knows the risks...he started out as a
> > >kiddie porn scanner himself
> >
This is a pretty heavy accusation! I'm forwarding it to ALS Scan.
Guilty or not, I think the guy ought to see what being written about
him.
Basementchild
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
dirty-dan
seen would not be illegal, they would be considered nudism and thus
the issues would be more of the sources he was scanning... Hamilton,
Sturges, misc nudist publications... but few seen might not equal all
he made... he is pretty testy now about his own copyrights on the ALS
scans.
>
>"Torris" <tor...@uswest.net> wrote in message
>news:rame.968908808p7843@bash...
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 07:20:05, "Taksan" <tak...@nospamhotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> By kiddie porn do you mean 8-10 year olds? Is Kern a US citizen?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Torris
>>
>> "Rehab is for quitters"
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ** rec.arts.movies.erotica FAQ at http://www.rame.net/faq **
>> ** internet adult film database at http://www.iafd.com **
>>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ** rec.arts.movies.erotica FAQ at http://www.rame.net/faq **
> ** internet adult film database at http://www.iafd.com **
>
*************************************************************************
HornyRob See our Webpage at: http://www.hornyrob.com
Products, Uncensored Usenet, Adult Webmaster Support
Exclusive Owner of all 4 Anna films in NTSC Format ~On Site~
Trademark and Copyright Infringement Rewards: www.hornyrob.com/copyright
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CCCP
of fact now ONLY use models 18 years or older, although it would be legal for them
to use 16-year olde girls in Holland. Would they work in Denmark, then tey could
even use 15-year old girls.
But anyone who thinks 16 year old girls having sex is kiddie porn should think
again.
CC, Amsterdam
Basementchild
c...@speed.a2000.nl wrote:
> Bookpress and Video Art Holland, the producers of the Seventeen-line,
as a matter
> of fact now ONLY use models 18 years or older, although it would be
legal for them
> to use 16-year olde girls in Holland. Would they work in Denmark,
then tey could
> even use 15-year old girls.
>
> But anyone who thinks 16 year old girls having sex is kiddie porn
should think
> again.
That's not the point. When I was 14 the girls I played with were 12
and 13. So what? Sixteen is old enough to marry in most states here
in the US, and it's old enough to say yes to other things as well in
many states.
Every civilized society protects nubile females and severly limits
access to them. Protecting girls under 18 from participating in
pornography doesn't strike me as a bad idea.
I don't know how long it's been since you sat down to talk to a 16-year
old. They are children!
Basementchild
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mike Paul
> In article <rame.969118804p8908@bash>,
> c...@speed.a2000.nl wrote:
> > Bookpress and Video Art Holland, the producers of the Seventeen-line,
> > as a matter of fact now ONLY use models 18 years or older, although
> > it would be
> > legal for them
> > to use 16-year olde girls in Holland. Would they work in Denmark,
> > then tey could
> > even use 15-year old girls.
> >
> > But anyone who thinks 16 year old girls having sex is kiddie porn
> > should think again.
>
> That's not the point. When I was 14 the girls I played with were 12
> and 13. So what? Sixteen is old enough to marry in most states here
> in the US, and it's old enough to say yes to other things as well in
> many states.
>
> Every civilized society protects nubile females and severly limits
> access to them. Protecting girls under 18 from participating in
> pornography doesn't strike me as a bad idea.
>
> I don't know how long it's been since you sat down to talk to a 16-year
> old. They are children!
Then I don't want "children" driving cars.
I can see it now, some "child" who killed me after speeding through a red
light gets all kinds of pity for being too young to know better...
> Basementchild
Mike Paul
Oh, wait, they *aren't* too young to make mistakes and kill people;
they're just too young to make the 'mistake' of doing adult movies...
Taksan
with everything.
He did these Cd's before the more
recent legislation and I don't think
he took the pictures.
Remember ALSscan stands for
Alex's Scans.
He was simply scanning old kiddie
porn mags and sellin CD's of the
scans.At the time he was doing this
I don't think there was any legislation
covering this at all.
Anyway he's 100% legit now and
proberbly beyond prosecution.
"Torris" <tor...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:rame.969069616p32137@bash...
Taksan
Its a FACT
If you read the FAQ on the ALS site it states
"there are no nudism photos on the ALS cds"
Thats what he used to call his old series of
CD's nudism CD's
He gave this up when it became illegal....
You ask any serious ALS scan collector...
they are all well aware of the "first series" Cd's
"Basementchild" <baseme...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:rame.969058812p30954@bash...
Torris
wrote:
>Its not a accusation at all...
>Its a FACT
>If you read the FAQ on the ALS site it states
>"there are no nudism photos on the ALS cds"
>Thats what he used to call his old series of
>CD's nudism CD's
>He gave this up when it became illegal....
>You ask any serious ALS scan collector...
>they are all well aware of the "first series" Cd's
when you say kiddie porn, I think of pre-teens fucking and sucking. Is
that what he was releasing? Or was it family "naturism" shots with
pre-pubescent girls.
Torris
"Rehab is for quitters"
Mike Paul
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 05:26:35 GMT, "Taksan" <tak...@nospamhotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Its not a accusation at all...
> >Its a FACT
> >If you read the FAQ on the ALS site it states
> >"there are no nudism photos on the ALS cds"
> >Thats what he used to call his old series of
> >CD's nudism CD's
> >He gave this up when it became illegal....
> >You ask any serious ALS scan collector...
> >they are all well aware of the "first series" Cd's
>
> when you say kiddie porn, I think of pre-teens fucking and sucking. Is
> that what he was releasing? Or was it family "naturism" shots with
> pre-pubescent girls.
As far as I can tell, the laws drew no distinction between the two...
> Torris
Mike Paul
Unless they've softened up a bit, you could say that "anything that might
remotely, possibly excite a paedophile and involves anyone under 18" was
lumped into the category of 'kiddy porn'...
Frank Simmons
>Remember ALSscan stands for
>Alex's Scans.
May have at one time, but on both the site and the just viewed photo session
#22 (Joanne & Trisha) video it is announced that it stands for "All Ladies
Shaved" - in fact on the vid Alex asks Joanne what ALS stands for, and she
replies with the above.
Frank
** Traci, Ginger, Kristara, Angel, Angel W., Angel K.; Those were the days! **
rogr...@my-deja.com
mp...@sc.rr.com wrote:
> Then I don't want "children" driving cars.
Mike, are you saying that 16 year olds shouldn't drive, or that men of
all ages should be allowed to fuck 15 year olds?
>
> I can see it now, some "child" who killed me after speeding through a
red
> light gets all kinds of pity for being too young to know better...
Not likely. With the strongly pro-death penalty view on teen crime, they
would be as likely as anyone to get gased. I didn't see a whole lot of
bleeding hearts giving two shits about the dickless wonders Harris and
Klebold.
>
>
> Mike Paul
>
> Oh, wait, they *aren't* too young to make mistakes and kill people;
> they're just too young to make the 'mistake' of doing adult movies...
I'm back to the unclear part. You think 16 year olds should make porn
movies, or just not drive? (I believe 18 is age in the UK BTW)
Either way, what should the driving age be, and what should the porn age
be? (Just curious)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Taksan
Is there a distintion between a nude
image of a child and a sexually expilcit
image of a child?
There certainly is under european law.
What is the situation in the USA?
"Mike Paul" <mp...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rame.969240005p24836@bash...
> In article <rame.969224405p22155@bash>, tor...@uswest.net says...
> > On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 05:26:35 GMT, "Taksan" <tak...@nospamhotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Its not a accusation at all...
> > >Its a FACT
> > >If you read the FAQ on the ALS site it states
> > >"there are no nudism photos on the ALS cds"
> > >Thats what he used to call his old series of
> > >CD's nudism CD's
> > >He gave this up when it became illegal....
> > >You ask any serious ALS scan collector...
> > >they are all well aware of the "first series" Cd's
> >
> > when you say kiddie porn, I think of pre-teens fucking and sucking. Is
> > that what he was releasing? Or was it family "naturism" shots with
> > pre-pubescent girls.
>
> As far as I can tell, the laws drew no distinction between the two...
>
> > Torris
>
> Mike Paul
>
> Unless they've softened up a bit, you could say that "anything that might
> remotely, possibly excite a paedophile and involves anyone under 18" was
> lumped into the category of 'kiddy porn'...
Taksan
The only scan I personaly saw was
just a nude kid on a beach
But anything could have been on those
CD's.
All I know is he suddenly stopped producing them
virtualy overnight ..then reemerged in his current
format with the Paige shoot.
"Torris" <tor...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:rame.969224405p22155@bash...
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 05:26:35 GMT, "Taksan" <tak...@nospamhotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Its not a accusation at all...
> >Its a FACT
> >If you read the FAQ on the ALS site it states
> >"there are no nudism photos on the ALS cds"
> >Thats what he used to call his old series of
> >CD's nudism CD's
> >He gave this up when it became illegal....
> >You ask any serious ALS scan collector...
> >they are all well aware of the "first series" Cd's
>
> when you say kiddie porn, I think of pre-teens fucking and sucking. Is
> that what he was releasing? Or was it family "naturism" shots with
> pre-pubescent girls.
>
>
> Torris
>
> "Rehab is for quitters"
Torris
>In article <rame.969224405p22155@bash>, tor...@uswest.net says...
>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 05:26:35 GMT, "Taksan" <tak...@nospamhotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Its not a accusation at all...
>> >Its a FACT
>> >If you read the FAQ on the ALS site it states
>> >"there are no nudism photos on the ALS cds"
>> >Thats what he used to call his old series of
>> >CD's nudism CD's
>> >He gave this up when it became illegal....
>> >You ask any serious ALS scan collector...
>> >they are all well aware of the "first series" Cd's
>>
>> when you say kiddie porn, I think of pre-teens fucking and sucking. Is
>> that what he was releasing? Or was it family "naturism" shots with
>> pre-pubescent girls.
>
>As far as I can tell, the laws drew no distinction between the two...
That's why it's a stupid law. What's sexual or forced sexual about a
naked body? A nine year old moppet forced to suck her father's cock on
film is a crime much more heinous
Mike Paul
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:30:53, Mike Paul <mp...@sc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >As far as I can tell, the laws drew no distinction between the two...
>
> That's why it's a stupid law. What's sexual or forced sexual about a
> naked body? A nine year old moppet forced to suck her father's cock on
> film is a crime much more heinous
Right.
But the Lawmakers tend to use pedophiles (American spelling) as
justification for any Fascist move against pornography they want to make.
ANYTHING that might excite them is banned, plain nudity or not...
> Torris
Mike Paul
It's for the children, you know...
Mike Paul
> In article <rame.969157215p13034@bash>,
> mp...@sc.rr.com wrote:
>
> > Then I don't want "children" driving cars.
>
> Mike, are you saying that 16 year olds shouldn't drive, or that men of
> all ages should be allowed to fuck 15 year olds?
What I want is consistency in what an 'adult' is, and what 'children' get
to do.
If I download pictures from the Internet, I have to *hope* some really
well-built young lady is actually old enough to keep me out of jail.
At some point of age, it would be more obvious.
I don't want to get screwed by guessing...
> > Mike Paul
> >
> > Oh, wait, they *aren't* too young to make mistakes and kill people;
> > they're just too young to make the 'mistake' of doing adult movies...
>
> I'm back to the unclear part. You think 16 year olds should make porn
> movies, or just not drive? (I believe 18 is age in the UK BTW)
> Either way, what should the driving age be, and what should the porn age
> be? (Just curious)
In South Carolina, 15 gets you a daylight-alone/night-with-21-year-old
license, and at 16 it's a full license, meaning they get unfettered
access to the road.
If 16-year-olds are that mature, they should be mature for everything.
Just like how they can do porn in some European countries.
But even 18-year-olds aren't good enough to accompany the 15-year-olds,
so even at 18 there are things people aren't allowed to do, even if they
*can* do porn.
When I was 18, it was OK to drink. Now it's 21. When did 18-year-olds
get dumber? When did 21-year-olds get smarter? Never, but the laws
changed.
What I want is consistency, and in an Internet world, I want the
consistency to be world-wide, and obvious...
Mike Paul
All I *really* want is for Traci Lords' flicks to be legal in the US, so
she can explain how "into" it she was...
Taksan
Its Alex's Scans
I remember it from 1995
Used to be the heading of his home page.
"Frank Simmons" <frank...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:rame.969171608p16840@bash...
> >From: "Taksan" tak...@nospamhotmail.com
>
> >Remember ALSscan stands for
> >Alex's Scans.
>
> May have at one time, but on both the site and the just viewed photo
session
> #22 (Joanne & Trisha) video it is announced that it stands for "All Ladies
> Shaved" - in fact on the vid Alex asks Joanne what ALS stands for, and she
> replies with the above.
>
> Frank
>
>
> ** Traci, Ginger, Kristara, Angel, Angel W., Angel K.; Those were the
days! **
Frank Simmons
>> >As far as I can tell, the laws drew no distinction between the two...
>>
>> That's why it's a stupid law. What's sexual or forced sexual about a
>> naked body? A nine year old moppet forced to suck her father's cock on
>> film is a crime much more heinous
>
>Right.
>
>But the Lawmakers tend to use pedophiles (American spelling) as
>justification for any Fascist move against pornography they want to make.
>
>ANYTHING that might excite them is banned, plain nudity or not...
>
>> Torris
>
>Mike Paul
>
>It's for the children, you know...
Actually, I believe the law actually makes some reference to "sexual display"
or something like that - however, it's up to the courts to decide where "art"
ends and "kiddie porn" begins, and they tend to be rather strict.
dirty-dan
materials that belong to nudist magazines and photographers
such as David Hamilton and Jock Sturges, nudism is not
illegal in the U.S. as the examples i saw and is sold still in the
U.S. Even Barnes and Noble carries Hamilton and Sturges...
as does Amazon and many better brick and mortar stores.
Nudist publications are not illegal and can be ordered from n
nudist sites. ALS pissed off some copyright owners and
they reacted.. as far as i know he settled all issues and
moved on to his current occupation. He years ago wrote
something and was circulated that all his scans were made
from materials purchased at a local book store (was it
Chicago) there is alot of ignorance here to what is and
is not legal.... i would say http://www.alessandrasmile.com/
pushes the limit, the owner Lawerence Stanley is a well
known 1st admin attorney who has been to the Supreme
Court in cases for the ACLU and represents Sturges and
Hamliton in the U.S. along with several nudist copyright
owners and suspect he had something to do with the
change in format of the ALS scans to date, copyright
not legal issues being the issue here.
In article <rame.969321612p5257@bash>, tak...@nospamhotmail.com wrote:
>Na...
>Its Alex's Scans
>I remember it from 1995
>Used to be the heading of his home page.
>
>"Frank Simmons" <frank...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:rame.969171608p16840@bash...
>> >From: "Taksan" tak...@nospamhotmail.com
>>
>> >Remember ALSscan stands for
>> >Alex's Scans.
>>
>> May have at one time, but on both the site and the just viewed photo
>session
>> #22 (Joanne & Trisha) video it is announced that it stands for "All Ladies
>> Shaved" - in fact on the vid Alex asks Joanne what ALS stands for, and she
>> replies with the above.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>> ** Traci, Ginger, Kristara, Angel, Angel W., Angel K.; Those were the
>days! **
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ** rec.arts.movies.erotica FAQ at http://www.rame.net/faq **
>> ** internet adult film database at http://www.iafd.com **
>>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ** rec.arts.movies.erotica FAQ at http://www.rame.net/faq **
> ** internet adult film database at http://www.iafd.com **
>
*************************************************************************
HornyRob See our Webpage at: http://www.hornyrob.com
Products, Uncensored Usenet, Adult Webmaster Support
Exclusive Owner of all 4 Anna films in NTSC Format ~On Site~
Trademark and Copyright Infringement Rewards: www.hornyrob.com/copyright
----------------------------------------------------------------------
rogr...@my-deja.com
> What I want is consistency, and in an Internet world, I want the
> consistency to be world-wide, and obvious...
Not going to happen until we get one world government. I would venture
to guess that the Iranian Gov still isn't too keen on 24 year olds
taking it all of, yaknowwhatimean?
>
> Mike Paul
>
> All I *really* want is for Traci Lords' flicks to be legal in the US,
so
> she can explain how "into" it she was...
Is that really what you were saying with this post, that the legal age
for porn should be lowered to 16? (There was was a very interesting
thread on that subject that was sadly trashed by the usual flame
throwing bullshit.)
As for how into it Traci was, she has explained that a zillion times.
(Believe her or don't) Acting and coke. Coke and acting. I know enough
performers to know that a LOT of the women you think are into it, would
much, MUCH rather be somewhere else. Was Traci one? Who knows and who
cares? She hasn't been a porn player for 15+ years. Time fast forward
and let her keep doing what ever D level project she's working on now.
LATE
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mike Paul
> > All I *really* want is for Traci Lords' flicks to be legal in the US,
> > so she can explain how "into" it she was...
>
> Is that really what you were saying with this post, that the legal age
> for porn should be lowered to 16? (There was was a very interesting
> thread on that subject that was sadly trashed by the usual flame
> throwing bullshit.)
NO, what I want is a Special Exemption For Fraud, where Traci's tapes are
removed from the lists of 'kiddy porn' due to her lying about her age.
(Although, given the posts lately on how 16=child, I wonder what those
people would say if the age for porn was raised to 21. Would we read
about people talking to 20-year-olds, and that *they* are children?...)
> As for how into it Traci was, she has explained that a zillion times.
> (Believe her or don't) Acting and coke. Coke and acting. I know enough
> performers to know that a LOT of the women you think are into it, would
> much, MUCH rather be somewhere else. Was Traci one? Who knows and who
> cares? She hasn't been a porn player for 15+ years. Time fast forward
> and let her keep doing what ever D level project she's working on now.
I guess I hear too many stories from other people, that don't match the
ones I've heard from her, that have jaded my view of her honesty...
Mike Paul
I feel she 'edits' her past to make it the way she wants it to be, and I
think letting her get away with it, just for lack of viewable evidence to
prove her wrong, isn't fair...
Snow Leopard
What's next? The works of Thomas Eakins? Jozef Mehoffer? Max Leibermann?
Taking the mouthpiece of a politician for a moment, I can picture it as...
"it is necessary so to get at the stuff that hides behind being art"
but then how does one tell art from non art (the age old question)? Why does it
feel like 50's Macarthyism or Nazi Germany?
Some could say that no photography is art, but I can think of those who would
disagree with that flat out. There are the old works, such as James Wallace
Black, Eugene Atget, Bernice Abbott, and Charles Nerge. There are any number of
modern photographers, myself included, and critics that would scoff that
photography can't be art. So that removes that qualifier to say that if some-
thing is photography, then it can't be art.
Talking US situation, somethings could perhaps be easily seen as child
pornography such as insertion/penetration.But on the basis of plain nudity,much
is open to censorship that perhaps should not be.Does the portrayl of a Greek
lad or a Spartan lass in track constitute grounds?Certainly, given the custom
of the time, there is high probability that they are less than 18.Certainly,
they will probably be nude. Should such works be therefore confisicated and
destroyed? Should works that show Angels as babes or infants be deprived of
showing from the world? Given the potential grounds, is it not conceivable that
works that show Mary and Christ might also fall under the same ax?
This is not meant to be preaching to the choir. Nor is it a demand for us to
storm the castle walls and lay down our very lives. It is meant to be an
illustration of possibilities of the devestating results that can happen when
lawmakers get overzealous in satisfying emotional thirst over total rational
thought.
-Traci
("Adric and I are willing to stomp out evil with the best of them, but let's
give it some thought first, huh?" (wtte)--Dr. Who, The Keeper of Traken)
Basementchild
to protect children, and conservatives who want to spoil the fun.
My favorite photographers are Diane Arbus and Joel-Peter Witkin. I'm
still waiting for some kind of flap to develop around Witkin, who has
had a major influence on horror movies--I don't expect to see his
images in porn. (Giger would work well in porn--remember the haunting
images in the first Alien). Hey, wait! Double amputees with leather
bags on their heads! There is such a thing as amputation porn, isn't
there?
Witkin's day will come when a troglodyte like Jesse Helms see his
stuff. However, I don't recall that Witkin has done pictures of
children in compromising positions.
Basementchild
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Taksan
women being arrested for taking photos of her
kids playing in the bath?
[MOD: Tho this has now veered off-topic, I'm giving a tad of latitude.
To answer Tak's question, yes, it seems to be an all-too-common
occurance of the guy at the local Fotomat calling the cops over
some innocent bathtime photos which always end up ruining some
old grandmother's life. Of course, in the news stories, you only get
the Grandmother's side, usually -- so you may not hear about her
fifteen prior charges of pedophilia... but I digress... -- Jeff]
"Frank Simmons" <frank...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:rame.969340811p8498@bash...
> >From: Mike Paul mp...@sc.rr.com
>
> >> >As far as I can tell, the laws drew no distinction between the two...
> >>
> >> That's why it's a stupid law. What's sexual or forced sexual about a
> >> naked body? A nine year old moppet forced to suck her father's cock on
> >> film is a crime much more heinous
> >
> >Right.
> >
> >But the Lawmakers tend to use pedophiles (American spelling) as
> >justification for any Fascist move against pornography they want to make.
> >
> >ANYTHING that might excite them is banned, plain nudity or not...
> >
> >> Torris
> >
> >Mike Paul
> >
> >It's for the children, you know...
>
> Actually, I believe the law actually makes some reference to "sexual
display"
> or something like that - however, it's up to the courts to decide where
"art"
> ends and "kiddie porn" begins, and they tend to be rather strict.
>
> Frank
>
> ** Traci, Ginger, Kristara, Angel, Angel W., Angel K.; Those were the
days! **
rogr...@my-deja.com
mp...@sc.rr.com wrote:
> In article <rame.969349208p9357@bash>, rogr...@my-deja.com says...
> > In article <rame.969321608p5248@bash>,
> > mp...@sc.rr.com wrote:
>
>
> NO, what I want is a Special Exemption For Fraud, where Traci's tapes
are
> removed from the lists of 'kiddy porn' due to her lying about her age.
Ohhh, OK. :-)
Trouble it, she WAS 15, 16 and 17 so it IS kiddie porn.
>
> (Although, given the posts lately on how 16=child, I wonder what those
> people would say if the age for porn was raised to 21. Would we read
> about people talking to 20-year-olds, and that *they* are
children?...)
Don't know. 18 or 21 should probably be the age for both 'adulthood' and
drinking.
I have always been open to the idea of lowering the age to 16, though I
am not sure it's a good idea. However, just like I favor legalizing all
narcotics, I still recognize the law and wouldn't feel sorry for anyone
who gets nailed breaking what I consider a questionable law.
>
forward
> > and let her keep doing what ever D level project she's working on
now.
>
> I guess I hear too many stories from other people, that don't match
the
> ones I've heard from her, that have jaded my view of her honesty...
Just telling you what I know. Believe it or don't. You think she REALLY
loved it and is now saying she was a coke head to hide the fact that she
was a slut?
LATE
>
> Mike Paul
>
> I feel she 'edits' her past to make it the way she wants it to be, and
I
> think letting her get away with it, just for lack of viewable evidence
to
> prove her wrong, isn't fair...
Like I said, Acting and Coke...or do you think she REALLY loved being
fucked by Harry Reems?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
lat...@hotmail.com
[MOD: I'll start cross posting this to alt.driving if this doesn't swing
back on topic somehow. -- Jeff]
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 14:06:50 GMT, rogr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>In article <rame.969157215p13034@bash>,
> mp...@sc.rr.com wrote:
>
>> Then I don't want "children" driving cars.
>
>Mike, are you saying that 16 year olds shouldn't drive, or that men of
>all ages should be allowed to fuck 15 year olds?
I would presume neither. If 16 year olds are children then why are
they allowed to drive cars. Clearly it is not enough to say 'a 16 year
old is a child and that is that'. I'm presuming the point here would
be that there is a grey area in the late teens where the term 'child'
can no longer accurately be used to refer to a person below majority
age.
Worth repeating yet again that in many European countries and a number
of US states men of all ages *can* quite legally fuck 15 year olds. In
the US they can't film this for another 3 years, in some European
countries they apparently can.
[snip]
>> Oh, wait, they *aren't* too young to make mistakes and kill people;
>> they're just too young to make the 'mistake' of doing adult movies...
>
>I'm back to the unclear part. You think 16 year olds should make porn
>movies, or just not drive? (I believe 18 is age in the UK BTW)
For driving or porn? The legal age to drive a motor car is 17 in the
UK. The legal age of consent is 16 (for heterosexual - or lesbian -
sex) or 18 (for male homosexual sex - this is probably going to be
equalized down to 16 in the immediate future). The child porn laws
relate only to those below the age of 16, so in theory the legal age
to appear in a hardcore porn film in the UK is 16. In practice the
producers seem to stick to 18 (presumably as 18 is the age of majority
and also as material with 16 & 17 year olds would not be salable in
the US and some other European countries). However, 16 year olds have
appeared and do continue to appear in softcore porn in the UK (mainly
stills) - by softcore I mean anything that does not include actual
bodily penetration - and presumably as child porn laws apply only to
under 16s if one were shooting a 'home movie' 16 would be quite safe
for hardcore as well.
>Either way, what should the driving age be, and what should the porn age
>be? (Just curious)
>From an entirely UK-based perspective I'd have to say that if they are
considered old enough to consent to sex they are old enough to be
filmed having sex. That seems to me a consistent position. On the
other hand, whilst I have enjoyed piccies of naked 16 year olds with a
clear conscience I am unsettled by the idea of 16 year olds performing
in porn movies. I make no apologies for being a complex and
contradictory person.
For driving, erm, about 25. That'd keep the boy racers off the roads
until their hormones had subsided. And it would give young people
something to aspire to :-)
Frank Simmons
>Just telling you what I know. Believe it or don't. You think she REALLY
>loved it and is now saying she was a coke head to hide the fact that she
>was a slut?
>
>Like I said, Acting and Coke...or do you think she REALLY loved being
>fucked by Harry Reems?
>
Well Rog, nobody's a bigger Traci fan than I am, but considering the stories of
what she used to do OFF SET, is it any wonder that people believe that she is
lying when she says "acting and coke". According to a *lot* of industry
insiders, she was a slut.
Why don't you take my suggestion and try to interview her? With her legendary
temper, she might make you forget some of your previous "incidents". :-)
Frank
** Traci, Ginger, Kristara, Angel, Angel W., Angel K.; Those were the days! **
Mike Paul
> Just telling you what I know. Believe it or don't. You think she REALLY
> loved it and is now saying she was a coke head to hide the fact that she
> was a slut?
>
> LATE
When she wanted to be a Porn Star, she said and did whatever was required
to appear to be one...
Mike Paul
When she wanted to be a Porn Victim, she did/does the same thing...
Torris
>Don't know. 18 or 21 should probably be the age for both 'adulthood' and
>drinking.
18 to vote or be drafted, should be 18 to drink or buy cigarettes
>I have always been open to the idea of lowering the age to 16, though I
>am not sure it's a good idea.
Can't minors petition to be emancipated at age 16? Same deal should
work for adult, but likely never will
>Just telling you what I know. Believe it or don't. You think she REALLY
>loved it and is now saying she was a coke head to hide the fact that she
>was a slut?
I think she liked it well enough to make money from it. I don't
believe the coke monster story one bit. She willingly went for it and
only afterwards has been able to reinvent history to make her appear
to be victimized. At least she doesn't go on a thousand talk shows a
month selling her story. She's never been a compelling enough actress
to make a difference anyway, her John Waters work excepted. There are
a thousand straight to video mannequins who are no more or less
talented an actress as she is.
>
>Like I said, Acting and Coke...or do you think she REALLY loved being
>fucked by Harry Reems?
No more then any of the other girls of her day did.
Torris
"Rehab is for quitters"
rogr...@my-deja.com
frank...@aol.com wrote:
> >From: rogr...@my-deja.com
> >
> Well Rog, nobody's a bigger Traci fan than I am, but considering the
stories of
> what she used to do OFF SET, is it any wonder that people believe that
she is
> lying when she says "acting and coke". According to a *lot* of
industry
> insiders, she was a slut.
Hey, I'm not saying she wasn't a slut. But.....if you want to hear off
camera stories that I have heard, I can fill your ears with them.
Remember, this is entertainment and 90% of porn is bullshit. The better
the bullshit, the more people will lay down their money. Sell it baby,
sell it :-)
>
> Why don't you take my suggestion and try to interview her? With her
legendary
> temper, she might make you forget some of your previous "incidents".
:-)
I have tried sending email....I think I will get an interview with her
about the time I get one with Max :-)
LATE
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Eigh...@aol.com
>to protect children, and conservatives who want to spoil the fun.
Let's not forget the CPPA (Child Pornorgraphy Protection Act) of 1996.
Under U.S. law, any "depiction" of a person who "appears to be under
age 18" engaged in sexual activity is now considered child porn. This
was originally intended to go after computer images, but includes all
books, painting, photos, articles, ANYTHING. Buffy the Vampire
Slayer, the movie Titanic, etc. etc., if someone claims to be under 18
or "appears" to be under 18, and they're having sex, it's kiddie porn.
If someone's autobiography depicts their first time, and they were
under 18, it's kiddie porn.
This travesty was created and passed by a bi-partisan Congress and
signed into law by a Democrat president. Those who think the danger
lies only from the Right are getting blindsided from the Left.
And now we have Joe McCarth...excuse me, Lieberman.
God help us all.
rogr...@my-deja.com
>
> When she wanted to be a Porn Star, she said and did whatever was
required
> to appear to be one...
She did whatever it took to feed a very expensive drug habit. The drugs
of choice these days are cheaper and porn doesn't pay that much in
comparison to stripping now, so things are different. (There is also a
lot more work in the biz now than then.)
>
> Mike Paul
>
> When she wanted to be a Porn Victim, she did/does the same thing...
That is certainly the case, so aren't we all better off just ignoring
her. She had her time in porn, she had her flash of fame and now she's
gone. Like it or not, she was underage. If I may say so, you're
contributing to both her victim status and her mystique.
Enough on this topic.
LATE
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Torris
>In article <rame.969477608p31628@bash>,
> frank...@aol.com wrote:
>> >From: rogr...@my-deja.com
>
>> >
>> Well Rog, nobody's a bigger Traci fan than I am, but considering the
>stories of
>> what she used to do OFF SET, is it any wonder that people believe that
>she is
>> lying when she says "acting and coke". According to a *lot* of
>industry
>> insiders, she was a slut.
>
>Hey, I'm not saying she wasn't a slut. But.....if you want to hear off
>camera stories that I have heard, I can fill your ears with them.
>Remember, this is entertainment and 90% of porn is bullshit. The better
>the bullshit, the more people will lay down their money. Sell it baby,
>sell it :-)
>
So are you stories saying that she was exploited reluctantly?
Torris
"Rehab is for quitters"
rogr...@my-deja.com
> >Hey, I'm not saying she wasn't a slut. But.....if you want to hear
off
> >camera stories that I have heard, I can fill your ears with them.
> >Remember, this is entertainment and 90% of porn is bullshit. The
better
> >the bullshit, the more people will lay down their money. Sell it
baby,
> >sell it :-)
> >
>
> So are you stories saying that she was exploited reluctantly?
I was refering to other stories of supposed 'slutty' behavior in and
around the biz. Traci's story is the same as Stacy Donovan's. That they
did what they did to pay for expensive drugs. I think that's being
'exploited' (and I don't personally believe that is the right word) to
pay for something they now regret. Were they dragged, kicking and
screaming? Not from what I can gather. It depends how much rope you give
someone morally for what they are willing to do to pay for a bad habit.
I give none, but I believe that someone can regret what they did. I
think she does regret it on some level, but I also think it's a great
story that keeps people interested in an over thirty, bad B actress.
Take from that what you will :-)
Rog
PS- Stories of Traci's sexual desires aren't any more or less slutty
than those of Ginger, Christy, Bunny Bleu etc. (which I think are 75%
hype anyway.)
>
> Torris
>
> "Rehab is for quitters"
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ** rec.arts.movies.erotica FAQ at http://www.rame.net/faq **
> ** internet adult film database at http://www.iafd.com **
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
DavidT
>
> >Don't know. 18 or 21 should probably be the age for both 'adulthood' and
> >drinking.
>
> 18 to vote or be drafted, should be 18 to drink or buy cigarettes
And more on point, 18 (in most states) to enter into contracts.
Basementchild
> > removed from the lists of 'kiddy porn' due to her lying about her
age.
>
> Ohhh, OK. :-)
> Trouble it, she WAS 15, 16 and 17 so it IS kiddie porn.
> >
> > (Although, given the posts lately on how 16=child,
There are precocious 16-year olds, but there are many, many more
retarded 30+year olds. The trouble is, that if you get them really
young, you get them physically maturing at different ages. Some 16-
year olds could pass for 30 and some look like they're 12.
I like the women in porn to have developed bodies. At the same time, a
woman with small breasts and hips, who does not look like a child, can
be very sexy. The popularity of oriental girls is probably because, to
occidental men, they look like kids.
It appears to me that women in porn are consumed alive. After a year
or two-and that is a long time-they are gone, spent, dirty laundry, old
at 25. Do we want to see this happening to 16-year olds? I mean, we
would be asking a lot of these kids just for the sake of the vicarious
sexual needs of this anonymous audience of panting, middle-aged men in
front of their flickering monitors--me included, of course.
It's too gross to think about.
Basementchild
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mike Paul
> I like the women in porn to have developed bodies. At the same time, a
> woman with small breasts and hips, who does not look like a child, can
> be very sexy. The popularity of oriental girls is probably because, to
> occidental men, they look like kids.
Are you telling me you thought Traci was too young *looking* for porn?...
> It appears to me that women in porn are consumed alive. After a year
> or two-and that is a long time-they are gone, spent, dirty laundry, old
> at 25. Do we want to see this happening to 16-year olds? I mean, we
> would be asking a lot of these kids just for the sake of the vicarious
> sexual needs of this anonymous audience of panting, middle-aged men in
> front of their flickering monitors--me included, of course.
'Kids' again. Oh, well...
See, I'm *not* pushing for 16-year-olds to start doing porn.
All *I* want is some sort of way that if something legal in another
country falls into my hands without my being able to tell it's illegal
here, I'm not crucified for it.
That, and I want Traci's tapes legal again because she doesn't *want*
them to be...
> Basementchild
Mike Paul
Vengeance is mine, saith the guy who chucked out not-cheap tapes because
of some lying actress being in them...
rogr...@my-deja.com
> country falls into my hands without my being able to tell it's illegal
> here, I'm not crucified for it.
You won't be crucified until you KNOW it's a kid. (Replace with underage
chick/slut/whore/princess whatever wording your prefer)
Since you know Traci was under 18, then yes, those movies are currently
against the law. They aren't going to make an exception.
The best solution? Move someplace where the laws more fit the way you
want to live your life.
>
> That, and I want Traci's tapes legal again because she doesn't *want*
> them to be...
>
That's a pretty personal attack. Were her movies really worth the
emotional effort it takes to muster up that much hatred and desire for
revenge? Me thinks not, but lately I've come to realize that none of
this shit is worth the effort it takes to get emotional enough to crack
a smile.
LATE
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mike Paul
> In article <rame.969675608p32493@bash>,
> mp...@sc.rr.com wrote:
> > All *I* want is some sort of way that if something legal in another
> > country falls into my hands without my being able to tell it's illegal
> > here, I'm not crucified for it.
>
> You won't be crucified until you KNOW it's a kid. (Replace with underage
> chick/slut/whore/princess whatever wording your prefer)
> Since you know Traci was under 18, then yes, those movies are currently
> against the law. They aren't going to make an exception.
Oh, please.
Some shlub who doesn't have a *clue* who Traci was goes into a video
store and gets one of those still-around tapes *I* have seen, and then
somehow gets stopped and searched for on the way home and they find it on
him, and they *won't* charge him with 'kiddy porn' possession?
Don't make out like *everybody* knows who Traci is/was...
> The best solution? Move someplace where the laws more fit the way you
> want to live your life.
My life isn't as complicated as the US-based people who post here, freely
admitting their Traci collections. I have none, and unless things
change, don't want any.
But those tapes being 'Kiddy Porn' *is* Legal Fiction, and don't get all
sanctimonious over it...
> > That, and I want Traci's tapes legal again because she doesn't *want*
> > them to be...
> >
> That's a pretty personal attack. Were her movies really worth the
> emotional effort it takes to muster up that much hatred and desire for
> revenge? Me thinks not,
It was over $80 worth of 'real' tapes, plus a bunch of rental-dupes I
chucked after finding her on them over the ensuing years...
Mike Paul
That bitterness would have gone away, except for her stories about her
poor, lost girlhood at the hands of the evil pornographers...
rogr...@my-deja.com
mp...@sc.rr.com wrote:
> In article <rame.969693605p2184@bash>, rogr...@my-deja.com says...
> > In article <rame.969675608p32493@bash>,
> > mp...@sc.rr.com wrote:
> > You won't be crucified until you KNOW it's a kid. (Replace with
underage
> > chick/slut/whore/princess whatever wording your prefer)
> > Since you know Traci was under 18, then yes, those movies are
currently
> > against the law. They aren't going to make an exception.
>
> Oh, please.
>
> Some shlub who doesn't have a *clue* who Traci was goes into a video
> store and gets one of those still-around tapes *I* have seen, and then
> somehow gets stopped and searched for on the way home and they find it
on
> him, and they *won't* charge him with 'kiddy porn' possession?
With all due respect, Bullshit. The above case isn't like saying..."I
didn't no crack was illegal." It's more like someone buying oregeno only
to find out it's pot. Assuming the person isn't totally full of shit, no
one is getting busted.
Quick quiz, how many people have gone to jail in the last 10 years for
owning Traci movies? Or even buying them for that matter?
>
> Don't make out like *everybody* knows who Traci is/was...
Show me someone who has bought one of her movies, not knowing who she
is, and been busted. Please.
>
> > The best solution? Move someplace where the laws more fit the way
you
> > want to live your life.
>
> My life isn't as complicated as the US-based people who post here,
freely
> admitting their Traci collections. I have none, and unless things
> change, don't want any.
I don't have any either. My family's store got to trade all of ours in
when it happened and that was the last I saw of them. I saw a whole box
of them for sale in a video store back in 94 or so. I'm sure someone
grabbed them up at 4.99 a piece.
>
> But those tapes being 'Kiddy Porn' *is* Legal Fiction, and don't get
all
> sanctimonious over it...
Pardon? Is she, or is she not legally a child Mike? Don't be a
hypocritie about it all right? (I think we have reached the limit of
discussion since you're starting to get snippy.)
>
> > That's a pretty personal attack. Were her movies really worth the
> > emotional effort it takes to muster up that much hatred and desire
for
> > revenge? Me thinks not,
>
> It was over $80 worth of 'real' tapes, plus a bunch of rental-dupes I
> chucked after finding her on them over the ensuing years...
So for 100 bucks, you're still this upset?
>
> Mike Paul
>
> That bitterness would have gone away, except for her stories about her
> poor, lost girlhood at the hands of the evil pornographers...
Aren't you the same guy who is perfectly willing to believe stories
about evil pornographers when it fits your.....you know what, never
mind.....:-)
Let it go Mike, it's not worth it.
Free advice because I love ya that much.
LATE
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mike Paul
> > Some shlub who doesn't have a *clue* who Traci was goes into a video
> > store and gets one of those still-around tapes *I* have seen, and then
> > somehow gets stopped and searched for on the way home and they find it
> > on him, and they *won't* charge him with 'kiddy porn' possession?
>
> With all due respect, Bullshit. The above case isn't like saying..."I
> didn't no crack was illegal." It's more like someone buying oregeno only
> to find out it's pot. Assuming the person isn't totally full of shit, no
> one is getting busted.
Really? Last I heard, having pot in your car meant 'possession', even if
your now-ex-best-friend left it there.
Seems like Kiddy Porn would be the same deal...
> Quick quiz, how many people have gone to jail in the last 10 years for
> owning Traci movies? Or even buying them for that matter?
Well, now, if it's 'Kiddy Porn', it's just as illegal as the stuff with
8-year-olds, isn't it?
And I *know* there have been busts on the younger stuff.
If there's already some sort of look-the-other-way policy on Traci's
stuff, it's news to me...
> > Don't make out like *everybody* knows who Traci is/was...
>
> Show me someone who has bought one of her movies, not knowing who she
> is, and been busted. Please.
Not saying it *has* happened. You said I'd have to *know* the underage
status to get in trouble:
> > > You won't be crucified until you KNOW it's a kid. (Replace with
> > > underage chick/slut/whore/princess whatever wording your prefer)
> > > Since you know Traci was under 18, then yes, those movies are
> > > currently against the law.
My statement is: No, if you've got it, it doesn't matter *what* you know,
you are in trouble...
> > My life isn't as complicated as the US-based people who post here,
> > freely admitting their Traci collections. I have none, and unless
> > things change, don't want any.
>
> I don't have any either. My family's store got to trade all of ours in
> when it happened and that was the last I saw of them. I saw a whole box
> of them for sale in a video store back in 94 or so. I'm sure someone
> grabbed them up at 4.99 a piece.
Right, and if if, and it's a *remote* if, the buyer didn't and still
doesn't know that Traci was underage, he/she is in trouble if caught with
it...
> > But those tapes being 'Kiddy Porn' *is* Legal Fiction, and don't get
> > all sanctimonious over it...
>
> Pardon? Is she, or is she not legally a child Mike? Don't be a
> hypocritie about it all right? (I think we have reached the limit of
> discussion since you're starting to get snippy.)
I'm sorry. How did your statement go?:
> > > The best solution? Move someplace where the laws more fit the way you
> > > want to live your life.
I took that as some sort of swipe, since I even discuss the FACT that no
'Kiddy Porn' concept was involved in making Traci's tapes or photo
shoots. Nobody said "Ooooh, she's underage, but we'll hire her anyway."
The fact that *her* fraud created 'Kiddy Porn' and is illegal constitutes
"Legal Fiction". NONE of the guys who *actually* had sex with Traci were
charged with statutory rape, because they were convinced by fake proof
that she was old enough. Nobody who produced her tapes was convicted,
because it was decided that her fraud was to blame, not their intent.
However, no matter how those court cases went, or how many of those tapes
say plain as day that "All persons appearing in this video are over 18",
there's no such legal escape for those of us who bought the damn things,
and there *should* be. Except for "Legal Fiction".
That's my position, and no, at 16 she's not a 'child' to be 'protected'
just because one law says she is.
She's an unconvicted fraud who never got what she deserved...
> > It was over $80 worth of 'real' tapes, plus a bunch of rental-dupes I
> > chucked after finding her on them over the ensuing years...
>
> So for 100 bucks, you're still this upset?
Money plus ongoing BS makes for a sore that doesn't heal...
> > Mike Paul
> >
> > That bitterness would have gone away, except for her stories about her
> > poor, lost girlhood at the hands of the evil pornographers...
>
> Aren't you the same guy who is perfectly willing to believe stories
> about evil pornographers when it fits your.....you know what, never
> mind.....:-)
Ah.
That's right.
Everything's a 'story', and there's no "proof", and so on...
> Let it go Mike, it's not worth it.
>
> Free advice because I love ya that much.
Mike Paul
Aw, shucks...
Jim Gunn
>That's my position, and no, at 16 she's not a 'child' to be 'protected'
>just because one law says she is.
Traci was no doubt a fraud, but how do you figure that she was not a
child when she made those movies? In strictly legal terms, she was
under the age of majority and therefore considered a minor when she
made those movies. There has to be some arbitrary cut off in the law
for the legal age of majority and 16 fall far short of the 18 year old
U.S. Federal age limit for adult modeling.
Jim Gunn
Jim Gunn Productions, Inc.
http://www.JimGunn.com
http://www.LesbianLoving.com
e-mail jim...@REMOVEjimgunn.com
(Please delete REMOVE from the e-mail address to reply)
rogr...@my-deja.com
>
> Really? Last I heard, having pot in your car meant 'possession', even
if
> your now-ex-best-friend left it there.
>
> Seems like Kiddy Porn would be the same deal...
So show me the case. Plain and simple. If you (Not YOU MP, but
collective you) have porn with a person under 18, then you should get
rid of it, or deal with whatever might happen. Right?
>
> > Quick quiz, how many people have gone to jail in the last 10 years
for
> > owning Traci movies? Or even buying them for that matter?
>
> Well, now, if it's 'Kiddy Porn', it's just as illegal as the stuff
with
> 8-year-olds, isn't it?
Yes, that part is true. It is. (Just as illegal)
>
> And I *know* there have been busts on the younger stuff.
But that wasn't my question. Even if I broaden it to, show me a case
wehre someone bought a tape with the reasonable assumption that the
girls in it are over 18, and got busted and the charges stuck....can you
site a case?
>
> If there's already some sort of look-the-other-way policy on Traci's
> stuff, it's news to me...
Not the question.
>
> > > Don't make out like *everybody* knows who Traci is/was...
> >
> > Show me someone who has bought one of her movies, not knowing who
she
> > is, and been busted. Please.
>
> Not saying it *has* happened. You said I'd have to *know* the
underage
> status to get in trouble:
Because you're worrying about the poor sap who would buy it not knowing
it's illegal.
>
> > > > You won't be crucified until you KNOW it's a kid. (Replace with
> > > > underage chick/slut/whore/princess whatever wording your prefer)
> > > > Since you know Traci was under 18, then yes, those movies are
> > > > currently against the law.
>
> My statement is: No, if you've got it, it doesn't matter *what* you
know,
> you are in trouble...
Are you saying it wouldn't matter in court? Come on Mike, you're smarter
than that.
>
> > of them for sale in a video store back in 94 or so. I'm sure someone
> > grabbed them up at 4.99 a piece.
>
> Right, and if if, and it's a *remote* if, the buyer didn't and still
> doesn't know that Traci was underage, he/she is in trouble if caught
with
> it...
His defense would be that he didn't know Traci was 16. THAT person has
something you don't have. Lack of knowledge. He has a better defense
than you or I would. Touogh break for us if either of us really wanted
to watch someone under 18 fucking on tape. (Which you could do legally
if you took a trip overseas.)
>
> > > But those tapes being 'Kiddy Porn' *is* Legal Fiction, and don't
get
> > > all sanctimonious over it...
> >
> > Pardon? Is she, or is she not legally a child Mike? Don't be a
> > hypocritie about it all right? (I think we have reached the limit of
> > discussion since you're starting to get snippy.)
>
> I'm sorry. How did your statement go?:
>
> > > > The best solution? Move someplace where the laws more fit the
way you
> > > > want to live your life.
>
> I took that as some sort of swipe, since I even discuss the FACT that
no
> 'Kiddy Porn' concept was involved in making Traci's tapes or photo
> shoots. Nobody said "Ooooh, she's underage, but we'll hire her
anyway."
Sorry you took that as a swipe. It's an honest statement. You can go
somewhere where the laws better fit your needs.
>
> The fact that *her* fraud created 'Kiddy Porn' and is illegal
constitutes
> "Legal Fiction". NONE of the guys who *actually* had sex with Traci
were
> charged with statutory rape, because they were convinced by fake proof
> that she was old enough. Nobody who produced her tapes was convicted,
> because it was decided that her fraud was to blame, not their intent.
Then put your money where your mouth is Mike. Stand up for what you
believe in. Buy those movies and challenge it in court. If it's a bad
law, then fight to change it.
Legally, that the producers weren't at fault has nothing to do with the
consumer end. If you find her tapes on sale from someone who knows they
are against the law, (Like the people on ebay) then they are in
violation. Pretty simple. However, if you want to challenge it, I'm sure
the ACLU would be happy to fund your defense.
> However, no matter how those court cases went, or how many of those
>
> That's my position, and no, at 16 she's not a 'child' to be
'protected'
> just because one law says she is.
But the law must apply to all, so you're saying that girls at 16 should
be allowed to fuck on tape and people should be allowed to sell, rent,
buy and own them. (Which is not a slam, just a search for a position in
this mess.)
>
> She's an unconvicted fraud who never got what she deserved...
So sue her. Stand by your convictions Mike.
>
> > > It was over $80 worth of 'real' tapes, plus a bunch of
rental-dupes I
> > > chucked after finding her on them over the ensuing years...
> >
> > So for 100 bucks, you're still this upset?
>
> Money plus ongoing BS makes for a sore that doesn't heal...
In all seriousness, LET the wound heal. You're still so upset about it.
You want to watch her on tape, then do so. Just know you face the law.
Or go overseas for a summer, watch them all and be done with it. She's
an ex porn star. Who gives a shit? You are letting this go within
yourself, like some untreated injury and it's not helping you.
>
> >
> > Aren't you the same guy who is perfectly willing to believe stories
> > about evil pornographers when it fits your.....you know what, never
> > mind.....:-)
>
> Ah.
>
> That's right.
>
> Everything's a 'story', and there's no "proof", and so on...
Yeah I know. Nothing I have ever said to you, or will ever say, or find
out, or have proof of, will ever make it through to you. That's cool. I
know there is no room in your world for an inch of disagreement. My bad
for stepping on that last one.
>
> > Let it go Mike, it's not worth it.
> >
> > Free advice because I love ya that much.
>
> Mike Paul
>
> Aw, shucks...
You probably thought I was being a smart ass.
I'm just full of surprises. :-)
LATE
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ribald Poet
>Traci was no doubt a fraud, but how do you figure that she was not a child
when she made those movies? In strictly legal terms, she was under the age of
majority and therefore considered a minor when she
made those movies. There has to be some arbitrary cut off in the law for the
legal age of majority and 16 fall far short of the 18 year old U.S. Federal age
limit for adult modeling.<<
Very nicely summarized, Jim.
...and quickly, for all you guys clamoring that once gals reach puberty they're
"good to go" sexually and need to be "checked-off" the "child list"... imo,
you're displaying a naivete as to the criteria that a civilized society uses to
define a "child" (and those people are in total disregard as to the mental &
emotional(psychological) criteria ---not just the SEXUAL ones!--- that a
civilized society uses to define what "child" means; now, that's not to say
there exists a range of a couple years in different societies... but to suggest
that a 13yr old be allowed to legally make pornographic materials (as was put
forth recently by RAMER Felix Miata) well.... that's just foolhardy & would
only show that a society that would permit this was certainly not comme il
faut.
Ribald Poet
Grainy picture, lame story and robotic chicks...
succinctly describe the VIVID flicks.
someone
news:rame.969823280p25458@bash...
> jim...@jimgunn.com wrote:
> you're displaying a naivete as to the criteria that a civilized society
uses to
> define a "child" ... to suggest that a 13yr old be allowed to legally make
> pornographic materials [is] just foolhardy & would
> only show that a society that would permit this was certainly not comme il
> faut.
I don't buy it. What do you say about a society that tries nine-year-olds
in a criminal court as adults? This whole debate is consumed by our
puritanical attitude about sex. Young kids are "adults" when it comes to
matters of violence, but they're still "children" when it comes to matters
of sex. That's ridiculous, of course. But it does mirror our culture.
Violence is commonplace, acceptable, and even expected. Sex is
bad, dirty, and evil. The dichotomy exists only in our culture, not
in our teenagers.
It reminds me of the common dichotomy at work. If you take time
off for a doctor appointment, you are treated as an hourly worker.
But if you work overtime, you're magically turned into a salaried
worker.
Mike Paul
> > Really? Last I heard, having pot in your car meant 'possession', even
> > if your now-ex-best-friend left it there.
> >
> > Seems like Kiddy Porn would be the same deal...
>
> So show me the case. Plain and simple. If you (Not YOU MP, but
> collective you) have porn with a person under 18, then you should get
> rid of it, or deal with whatever might happen. Right?
Right. And IMHO if you don't know, you're still screwed...
> But that wasn't my question. Even if I broaden it to, show me a case
> wehre someone bought a tape with the reasonable assumption that the
> girls in it are over 18, and got busted and the charges stuck....can you
> site a case?
I guess I'm wondering why I need to come up with a case that exists, when
we've already said the concept of having it is enough.
I recall the guy who was targeted by the Feds a while back, and had
'little boy' catalogs dumped on him for years, until he bought something.
The Feds took him to trial, and he claimed *he* didn't go looking for the
stuff, and had every expectation that it was legal stuff. The court let
him off *on appeal*, but only because of the pervasive ongoing thrusting
of the stuff at him. I bet other cases, where other guys bought right
away without prodding, weren't reversed. They may or may not have known
how legal the stuff was before ordering.
Is this where you're going: one guy got off when part of his case was "I
didn't know"?...
> > Not saying it *has* happened. You said I'd have to *know* the
> > underage status to get in trouble:
>
> Because you're worrying about the poor sap who would buy it not knowing
> it's illegal.
Heck, I'm worried about him, and *me*, when I go to
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.puffies and see Traci Lords pics, and
wonder how many other under-18 'girls' are there...
> > My statement is: No, if you've got it, it doesn't matter *what* you
> > know, you are in trouble...
>
> Are you saying it wouldn't matter in court? Come on Mike, you're smarter
> than that.
I am convinced that if caught with illegal goods, ignorance of their
illegality is not enough to ensure one stays out of jail.
I've been around long enough, and heard enough bad decisions made, that
even if you find one that went another way, I'm sure some folks have
stayed in jail even if ignorant...
> > > of them for sale in a video store back in 94 or so. I'm sure someone
> > > grabbed them up at 4.99 a piece.
> >
> > Right, and if if, and it's a *remote* if, the buyer didn't and still
> > doesn't know that Traci was underage, he/she is in trouble if caught
> > with it...
>
> His defense would be that he didn't know Traci was 16. THAT person has
> something you don't have. Lack of knowledge. He has a better defense
> than you or I would. Touogh break for us if either of us really wanted
> to watch someone under 18 fucking on tape. (Which you could do legally
> if you took a trip overseas.)
If *you* think he'd get off, I can't say much more than "I don't think
so"...
> > I took that as some sort of swipe, since I even discuss the FACT that
> > no 'Kiddy Porn' concept was involved in making Traci's tapes or photo
> > shoots. Nobody said "Ooooh, she's underage, but we'll hire her
> > anyway."
>
> Sorry you took that as a swipe. It's an honest statement. You can go
> somewhere where the laws better fit your needs.
See? Another swipe. Somehow, it's not the law which ignores her fraud
that needs to go away, it's me.
I want a clause excluding fraud to be added. Seems fair.
What's the problem with fairness, that I need to go elsewhere to find
it?...
> > The fact that *her* fraud created 'Kiddy Porn' and is illegal
> > constitutes "Legal Fiction". NONE of the guys who *actually* had
> > sex with Traci were
> > charged with statutory rape, because they were convinced by fake proof
> > that she was old enough. Nobody who produced her tapes was convicted,
> > because it was decided that her fraud was to blame, not their intent.
>
> Then put your money where your mouth is Mike. Stand up for what you
> believe in. Buy those movies and challenge it in court. If it's a bad
> law, then fight to change it.
If I'm unemployed and broke, and can't think of anything I want to do
than spend a lot of years in jail, I'll risk it.
Until then, I'll just argue the point out of court...
> Legally, that the producers weren't at fault has nothing to do with the
> consumer end. If you find her tapes on sale from someone who knows they
> are against the law, (Like the people on ebay) then they are in
> violation. Pretty simple. However, if you want to challenge it, I'm sure
> the ACLU would be happy to fund your defense.
Oooooooh, I doubt that.
I'm not going to spend *another* session with the local ACLU folks to
have them send *another* rejection letter...
> > That's my position, and no, at 16 she's not a 'child' to be
> > 'protected' just because one law says she is.
>
> But the law must apply to all, so you're saying that girls at 16 should
> be allowed to fuck on tape and people should be allowed to sell, rent,
> buy and own them. (Which is not a slam, just a search for a position in
> this mess.)
Which law? The "one" 'Kiddy Porn' law, or the others which make fraud
illegal?
Why do you fixate on the one, like I want 16-year-olds in porn?
I want Traci's work declared legal, that's all. No precedent for
allowing non-fraud stuff to be sold.
I mean, why keep misreading what I write?...
> > She's an unconvicted fraud who never got what she deserved...
>
> So sue her. Stand by your convictions Mike.
Oh, like there's a precedent for that (the lawsuit, not my
convictions)...
> > Money plus ongoing BS makes for a sore that doesn't heal...
>
> In all seriousness, LET the wound heal. You're still so upset about it.
> You want to watch her on tape, then do so. Just know you face the law.
> Or go overseas for a summer, watch them all and be done with it. She's
> an ex porn star. Who gives a shit? You are letting this go within
> yourself, like some untreated injury and it's not helping you.
Did you notice how I dislike 'basic unfairness'?
www.mikepaul.com/PARC.htm ring any bells?
If I was to just give up on something I *believe* is The Right Thing, it
seems to me that would be a slippery slope to just not giving a shit
about anything.
What *I* believe is right is that nothing Traci did should be illegal,
because it was created under fraudulent circumstances. Period. No
ongoing 16-year-olds doing porn.
You and I always seem to find these issues, somehow...
> > Ah.
> >
> > That's right.
> >
> > Everything's a 'story', and there's no "proof", and so on...
>
> Yeah I know. Nothing I have ever said to you, or will ever say, or find
> out, or have proof of, will ever make it through to you. That's cool. I
> know there is no room in your world for an inch of disagreement. My bad
> for stepping on that last one.
No, you didn't catch the full meaning.
EVERYTHING is a story. YOU aren't to be believed, either. "Proof"?
What's proof?
When Asia tells me something, that's not proof. When someone tells you
something, that's not proof.
This is *YOUR* legacy, Rog. There is no proof, only stories...
Mike Paul
Now you'll tell me the story of how YOUR proof *is* proof...
rogr...@my-deja.com
mp...@sc.rr.com wrote:
> In article <rame.969768005p15253@bash>, rogr...@my-deja.com says...
> > In article <rame.969759604p12779@bash>,
> > mp...@sc.rr.com wrote:
>
>
> Right. And IMHO if you don't know, you're still screwed...
I'll believe it when I see it. When someone who honestly doesn't know
that Traci was a child (As defined legally to perform in porn) buys
something and goes to jail, I will see it as a problem. Until then, it's
just speculation. Not a slam, we just don't share the same fears.
>
> > But that wasn't my question. Even if I broaden it to, show me a case
> > wehre someone bought a tape with the reasonable assumption that the
> > girls in it are over 18, and got busted and the charges stuck....can
you
> > site a case?
>
> I guess I'm wondering why I need to come up with a case that exists,
when
> we've already said the concept of having it is enough.
>
> I recall the guy who was targeted by the Feds a while back, and had
> 'little boy' catalogs dumped on him for years, until he bought
something.
> The Feds took him to trial, and he claimed *he* didn't go looking for
the
> stuff, and had every expectation that it was legal stuff. The court
let
> him off *on appeal*, but only because of the pervasive ongoing
thrusting
> of the stuff at him. I bet other cases, where other guys bought right
> away without prodding, weren't reversed. They may or may not have
known
> how legal the stuff was before ordering.
He bought child porn, knowing it was child porn. If someone who reads
RAME buys Traci movies, they do so knowing what they are. I think we
have come to the conclusion that no such case on a Traci video exists at
this time. You have said you don't plan to buy or watch her movies so
what the hell are we fighting about?
>
> Is this where you're going: one guy got off when part of his case was
"I
> didn't know"?...
>
> Heck, I'm worried about him, and *me*, when I go to
> alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.puffies and see Traci Lords pics, and
> wonder how many other under-18 'girls' are there...
All you have to do is pay attention, avoid what you know to be illegal
and not keep stuff after someone blows the whistle on the next under
ager. Since you said you want a one time Traci exemption, it should
matter anyway.
> > Are you saying it wouldn't matter in court? Come on Mike, you're
smarter
> > than that.
>
> I am convinced that if caught with illegal goods, ignorance of their
> illegality is not enough to ensure one stays out of jail.
When some DA prosecutes a case, then we can talk. Hell, I actually
pointed out Traci tapes to two vice cops at a show (They were
bootlegged) and they told me that they weren't going to do a thing about
them. (They were there to make sure the nipples were covered on non
Traci porn boxes.
>
> I've been around long enough, and heard enough bad decisions made,
that
> even if you find one that went another way, I'm sure some folks have
> stayed in jail even if ignorant...
>
I appreciate that you are sure, and I'm not fighting you. I'm just
asking if you, or anyone knows of an atual case where this has happened.
> > His defense would be that he didn't know Traci was 16. THAT person
has
> > something you don't have. Lack of knowledge. He has a better defense
> > than you or I would. Touogh break for us if either of us really
wanted
> > to watch someone under 18 fucking on tape. (Which you could do
legally
> > if you took a trip overseas.)
>
> If *you* think he'd get off, I can't say much more than "I don't think
> so"...
And I say that any decent lawyer would get him off. If he REALLY didn't
know....(And if he did know, then he'd face the piper right?)
> >
> > Sorry you took that as a swipe. It's an honest statement. You can go
> > somewhere where the laws better fit your needs.
>
> See? Another swipe. Somehow, it's not the law which ignores her
fraud
> that needs to go away, it's me.
Damn, that was NOT a swipe. You want a law that will make it legal for
16 years to fuck on film. (Word it any way you want it, but you can't
make Traci movies legal without changing the age. They ARE child porn
acording to the law, period.) All I was saying was that when people are
set in their beliefs, they are free to find a place to live where things
are different. If you still take that as a swipe, sorry, it's simply
not. (You know I'd let you know if I wanted to take a swipe at you
Mike.)
And the law didn't ignore her fraud. Did any production company go after
her? Do we know what charges Traci faced? Or what DA chose to or not to
press them?
>
> I want a clause excluding fraud to be added. Seems fair.
>
> What's the problem with fairness, that I need to go elsewhere to find
> it?...
The problem isn't with fairness. The problem is that Traci movies star
at least one girl who is legally (Not saying if this is right or wrong)
under age. Regardless of how she got in them, they ARE what they are. If
I were to shoot some new girl with a good fake ID, only to find she was
16, should I be able to sell that video? She lied, so by your exemption,
I'm free to make money on something that is illegal. (You are a bright
enough person to see that fraud is a loophole that the porn biz would
exploit faster than you could dust off your VCR to play Traci movies.)
>
> >
> > Then put your money where your mouth is Mike. Stand up for what you
> > believe in. Buy those movies and challenge it in court. If it's a
bad
> > law, then fight to change it.
>
> If I'm unemployed and broke, and can't think of anything I want to do
> than spend a lot of years in jail, I'll risk it.
>
> Until then, I'll just argue the point out of court...
All right, then sue Traci for fraud. Sue her for damages. I will
contribute to a legal fund for you.
>
> > >
>
> Which law? The "one" 'Kiddy Porn' law, or the others which make fraud
> illegal?
Yes, fraud is illegal, but does that make illegal tapes legal? The fact,
again is that Traci movies ARE kiddie porn.
>
> Why do you fixate on the one, like I want 16-year-olds in porn?
You can't have one without the other. Fairness and all that.
>
> I want Traci's work declared legal, that's all. No precedent for
> allowing non-fraud stuff to be sold.
>
> I mean, why keep misreading what I write?...
I'm just pointing out that you can't have it. Not in this system. You
may have a case against Traci, but not against the law preventing
underage girls from being in porn.
Go back to the example. I buy oregeno, only to find out it's pot. Should
the feds let me use the pot in my pasta? After all, the guy who sold it
to me is guilty of fraud.
>
> > > She's an unconvicted fraud who never got what she deserved...
> >
> > So sue her. Stand by your convictions Mike.
>
> Oh, like there's a precedent for that (the lawsuit, not my
> convictions)...
Sue her for fraud. You have a better chance of that than of getting
kiddie porn declared legal based on what you've got.
>
> > > M
> > an ex porn star. Who gives a shit? You are letting this go within
> > yourself, like some untreated injury and it's not helping you.
>
> Did you notice how I dislike 'basic unfairness'?
> www.mikepaul.com/PARC.htm ring any bells?
>
> If I was to just give up on something I *believe* is The Right Thing,
it
> seems to me that would be a slippery slope to just not giving a shit
> about anything.
I guess I was trying to figure out how you can think it's the 'right
thing' when it clearly has no legs. You're saying that it should be OK
to watch a 15 year old because she lied about her age. That might work
if you happened to be in bed with an underaged girl who lied to you on
the spot. But the fact is, you 'know' she is 15.
>
> What *I* believe is right is that nothing Traci did should be illegal,
> because it was created under fraudulent circumstances. Period. No
> ongoing 16-year-olds doing porn.
Sorry, just pointing out that you can't change a law to let one through.
Your only shot is to sue her.
>
> You and I always seem to find these issues, somehow...
My bad, I shouldn't have asked you anything.
>
>
> > know there is no room in your world for an inch of disagreement. My
bad
> > for stepping on that last one.
>
> No, you didn't catch the full meaning.
I caught it, I'm just not interested in fighting with you.
>
> EVERYTHING is a story. YOU aren't to be believed, either. "Proof"?
> What's proof?
>
> When Asia tells me something, that's not proof. When someone tells
you
> something, that's not proof.
>
> This is *YOUR* legacy, Rog. There is no proof, only stories...
If that's what you say my legacy is, then that's what you will hold on
to. I just pointed out that you need to change your stand to get what
you want. You're going to have to open up the age issue to watch those
few dozen Traci scenes.
There is plenty of proof on some issues Mike, there is truth, there is
fiction, there is rumor and there are outright lies. It's up to people
to try and figure out which is which.
>
> Mike Paul
>
> Now you'll tell me the story of how YOUR proof *is* proof...
I don't know what you're challenging. You're the one who is sure cases
that haven't happened WILL happen. I just said that until one exists,
then there is no proof of it. (Like I said, I stopped trying to share
information with you a long time ago, here or in private and you know
why. I could point to the blue sky and never convince you it's not
green. It's somehow personal and that's a sad obstacle.
LATE
PS- I mean it though, I'll contribute to a legal fund for you, if you're
willing to take the one legal option you do have.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ** rec.arts.movies.erotica FAQ at http://www.rame.net/faq **
> ** internet adult film database at http://www.iafd.com **
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mike Paul
> Mike Paul <mp...@sc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >That's my position, and no, at 16 she's not a 'child' to be 'protected'
> >just because one law says she is.
>
> child when she made those movies? In strictly legal terms, she was
> under the age of majority and therefore considered a minor when she
> made those movies. There has to be some arbitrary cut off in the law
> for the legal age of majority and 16 fall far short of the 18 year old
> U.S. Federal age limit for adult modeling.
That was part-and-parcel of the 'fraud' section. The 'child' part
overwhelmed the 'fraud', so she was coddled rather than tried. The other
part of the law, where since *she* knew how old she was she should have
been charged, was ignored. Some kid defrauded stocks a while back, and
didn't get to walk away. Maybe the SEC should handle 'Kiddy Porn'.
IMHO, there should be *some* indemnity for the defrauded when fraud is
committed.
In a perfect world, a court *could* declare that, since Traci gave false
information to intentionally cause 'Kiddy Porn' to be made, her scenes
*were* made by someone of legal age. This follows the same logic that
got dozens of guys like Peter North out of 'statutory rape' trouble: what
was known (fake proof) counts more that what wasn't (her real age.)
Characters portrayed by Nora Kuzma would be declared effectively over-18,
and therefore there would be no more 'Kiddy Porn'...
> Jim Gunn
Mike Paul
Of course, *nobody* is going to make such a decision, since that would
seem to be supportive of porn...
Jim Gunn
>In article <rame.969765619p14900@bash>, jim...@REMOVEjimgunn.com says...
>> Mike Paul <mp...@sc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >That's my position, and no, at 16 she's not a 'child' to be 'protected'
>> >just because one law says she is.
>>
>> Traci was no doubt a fraud, but how do you figure that she was not a
>> child when she made those movies? In strictly legal terms, she was
>> under the age of majority and therefore considered a minor when she
>> made those movies. There has to be some arbitrary cut off in the law
>> for the legal age of majority and 16 fall far short of the 18 year old
>> U.S. Federal age limit for adult modeling.
>
>That was part-and-parcel of the 'fraud' section. The 'child' part
>overwhelmed the 'fraud', so she was coddled rather than tried.
> The other part of the law, where since *she* knew how old she was she should have
>been charged, was ignored. Some kid defrauded stocks a while back, and
>didn't get to walk away. Maybe the SEC should handle 'Kiddy Porn'.
She *could* have very well been tried under criminal statutes for
fraud, malicious michief (I imagine), and who knows what else.
Whether the authourities actually did so or did not is a matter of
follow through and practicality, not public policy.
>
>IMHO, there should be *some* indemnity for the defrauded when fraud is
>committed.
The law doesn't normally allow for indemnity against loses by victims
of crimes. Those who were defrauded could have asked that she be
prosecuted for any number of crimes and/or sued her civilly for their
losses.
>
>In a perfect world, a court *could* declare that, since Traci gave false
>information to intentionally cause 'Kiddy Porn' to be made, her scenes
>*were* made by someone of legal age.
There is no basis in law for such a conclusion.
> This follows the same logic that
>got dozens of guys like Peter North out of 'statutory rape' trouble: what
>was known (fake proof) counts more that what wasn't (her real age.)
Their lack of knowledge of her underage status under the "reasonable
person" doctrine was their logical defense if it ever came to that.
>
>Characters portrayed by Nora Kuzma would be declared effectively over-18,
>and therefore there would be no more 'Kiddy Porn'...
Again there is no basis in law for such a solution. What actually
happened makes a lot more sense. That the movies had to be pulled and
that people are more careful next time to avoid this happening in the
future.
>Of course, *nobody* is going to make such a decision, since that would
>seem to be supportive of porn...
Not to mention ilogical and unnecessary, unless, like you, one is
trying with forethought to manufacture *any* logic that would allow a
pre-18 Traci Lords movie to be legal, in the same manner that you'll
apply any torturous logic to coerce people to have interracial sex.
Jim Gunn
Jim Gunn Productions, Inc.
http://www.JimGunn.com
http://www.LesbianLoving.com
e-mail jim...@REMOVEjimgunn.com
(Please delete REMOVE from the e-mail address to reply)
Jim Gunn
>I want Traci's work declared legal, that's all. No precedent for
>allowing non-fraud stuff to be sold.
>
>I mean, why keep misreading what I write?...
Are you for real man? Dude, there has to be some arbitrary cut off in
the law and that's that. Eighteen is the cut off. None of this "in
this one case because of fraud we'll suddenly allow a sixteen year
old's porn movies to be legal just in this one circumstance".
Jim Gunn
Jim Gunn Productions, Inc.
http://www.JimGunn.com
http://www.LesbianLoving.com
e-mail jim...@REMOVEjimgunn.com
(Please delete REMOVE from the e-mail address to reply)
Ribald Poet
r. poet wrote:>you're displaying a naivete as to the criteria that a civilized
society
uses to define a "child" [mental/emotional/psychological criteria, not just
sexual criteria] ... to suggest that a 13yr old be allowed to legally make
pornographic materials(RAMER Felix Miata) [is] just foolhardy & would only show
that a society that would permit this was certainly not comme il faut.<<
someone:>I don't buy it.<<
Well, you should.
>What do you say about a society that tries nine-year-olds in a criminal court
as adults?<<
To answer your question directly, I say it's *ABSURD*...absolutely absurd.
(imo, it's somewhat akin to when a dog bites a man and saying, "Let's prosecute
the dog as a human." IOW, a 9yr old is no more an adult than a dog is a human.)
BTW, I wrote an editorial to my local newspaper regarding this exact topic when
that kid was put on trial in Michigan (he was represented by Kevorkian's
lawyer, Jeffrey Fieger)
... and besides, this example you cite is an anomaly in juris prudence when you
assess the total number of cases that go to trial; cases such as these garner
excessive publicity because they are so unwonted.
Also, I believe you're mixing apples with oranges in your example (trying to
link 13yr olds being allowed to do porn with societal *punishment* for acts
committed against it[society]... one thing speaks to societal allowance while
the other speaks to societal retribution, which are two different concepts.
BUT... if I was going to engage in your [specious] linkage for just a moment,
in my mind one can diffuse it by conjuring up a paraphrase of the age-old
axiom: "Do two wrongs make a right?"
>This whole debate is consumed by our
puritanical attitude about sex.<<
Hardly... one that doesn't believe 9yr olds (or 13yr olds) should be legally
able to appear in pornographic materials is hardly puritanical, I can assure
you.
Now, does American society possess puritanical remnants... absolutely. But
that's NOT what we are discussing in this thread ("whole debate") and that's a
completely different discussion.
>Young kids are "adults" when it comes to
matters of violence, but they're still "children" when it comes to matters of
sex. That's ridiculous, of course.<<
I agree with your assessment that it is "ridiculous", but we agree it's
ridiculous for different reasons (kids should NOT be equated to adults in
matters of violence)
>But it does mirror our culture.Violence is commonplace, acceptable, and even
expected. Sex is bad, dirty, and evil. The dichotomy exists only in our
culture, not in our teenagers.<<
Imo, this is merely biased blather (again, comparing culture with teenagers is
misguided... for different components comprise the two)
>It reminds me of the common dichotomy at work. If you take time off for a
doctor appointment, you are treated as an hourly worker.But if you work
overtime, you're magically turned into a salaried worker.<<
Hmmmm... if you say so. <scratching head>
Ribald Poet
Grainy picture, lame story and robotic chicks...
succinctly describe the VIVID flicks.
Mike Paul
> Not to mention ilogical and unnecessary, unless, like you, one is
> trying with forethought to manufacture *any* logic that would allow a
> pre-18 Traci Lords movie to be legal, in the same manner that you'll
> apply any torturous logic to coerce people to have interracial sex.
I *knew* it.
We can't walk away from your desperate need to bash me and support things
I find repugnant for more than a sentence or two...
> Jim Gunn
Mike Paul
12-year-olds get called 'adults' all the time when it suits legal
purposes, yet when I suggest using it you go looking for a cheap shot...
Torris
>I don't buy it. What do you say about a society that tries nine-year-olds
>in a criminal court as adults? This whole debate is consumed by our
>puritanical attitude about sex. Young kids are "adults" when it comes to
>matters of violence, but they're still "children" when it comes to matters
>of sex. That's ridiculous, of course. But it does mirror our culture.
In the sexual realm however. Isn't it a matter of when can a child
give consent? You can't really compare that to being tried as an adult
when a child commits a crime. I wouldn't have any problem with the age
being dropped to 16. 14? 12? Just b/c they can do the deed doesn't
mean that I'd feel comfortable seeing this
Torris
"Rehab is for quitters"
Torris
>That was part-and-parcel of the 'fraud' section. The 'child' part
>overwhelmed the 'fraud', so she was coddled rather than tried. The other
>part of the law, where since *she* knew how old she was she should have
>been charged, was ignored. Some kid defrauded stocks a while back, and
>didn't get to walk away. Maybe the SEC should handle 'Kiddy Porn'.
Ignoring the zealotry angle for a moment, they definitely would have
given Traci a pass to roll over to hook some bigger fish. Don't you
ever watch Law and Order?
>
>IMHO, there should be *some* indemnity for the defrauded when fraud is
>committed.
Yes in civil court. Except can you see a minor in that jurisdiction?
>
>In a perfect world, a court *could* declare that, since Traci gave false
>information to intentionally cause 'Kiddy Porn' to be made, her scenes
>*were* made by someone of legal age. This follows the same logic that
>got dozens of guys like Peter North out of 'statutory rape' trouble: what
>was known (fake proof) counts more that what wasn't (her real age.)
Were any of the actors who fucked Traci threatened with statutory rape
charges?
>
>Characters portrayed by Nora Kuzma would be declared effectively over-18,
>and therefore there would be no more 'Kiddy Porn'...
There's no way they were going to allow her under age films to stay on
the market.
Torris
"Rehab is for quitters"
Mike Paul
> He bought child porn, knowing it was child porn. If someone who reads
> RAME buys Traci movies, they do so knowing what they are. I think we
> have come to the conclusion that no such case on a Traci video exists at
> this time. You have said you don't plan to buy or watch her movies so
> what the hell are we fighting about?
I guess it's the concept of "What is illegal?" versus "What can I get
convicted of?".
I set my cruise control at [speed limit]+5, and hope no cops are bored
enough to ticket me.
That's about my limit for flirting with prosecution...
> > Heck, I'm worried about him, and *me*, when I go to
> > alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.puffies and see Traci Lords pics, and
> > wonder how many other under-18 'girls' are there...
>
> All you have to do is pay attention, avoid what you know to be illegal
> and not keep stuff after someone blows the whistle on the next under
> ager.
Again, I'm not so sure what I don't know will protect me...
> > I am convinced that if caught with illegal goods, ignorance of their
> > illegality is not enough to ensure one stays out of jail.
>
> When some DA prosecutes a case, then we can talk. Hell, I actually
> pointed out Traci tapes to two vice cops at a show (They were
> bootlegged) and they told me that they weren't going to do a thing about
> them. (They were there to make sure the nipples were covered on non
> Traci porn boxes.
Oh, OK. So much for 'vigilance'...
> > I've been around long enough, and heard enough bad decisions made,
> > that
> > even if you find one that went another way, I'm sure some folks have
> > stayed in jail even if ignorant...
> >
> I appreciate that you are sure, and I'm not fighting you. I'm just
> asking if you, or anyone knows of an atual case where this has happened.
Based on your vice-cop story, I don't think we'll be hearing of one
soon...
> > If *you* think he'd get off, I can't say much more than "I don't think
> > so"...
>
> And I say that any decent lawyer would get him off. If he REALLY didn't
> know....(And if he did know, then he'd face the piper right?)
Sure...
> > >
> > > Sorry you took that as a swipe. It's an honest statement. You can go
> > > somewhere where the laws better fit your needs.
> >
> > See? Another swipe. Somehow, it's not the law which ignores her
> > fraud that needs to go away, it's me.
>
> Damn, that was NOT a swipe. You want a law that will make it legal for
> 16 years to fuck on film. (Word it any way you want it, but you can't
> make Traci movies legal without changing the age. They ARE child porn
> acording to the law, period.) All I was saying was that when people are
> set in their beliefs, they are free to find a place to live where things
> are different. If you still take that as a swipe, sorry, it's simply
> not. (You know I'd let you know if I wanted to take a swipe at you
> Mike.)
As I posted earlier, if you adjust *her* age and declare her "an adult",
she wouldn't be under-age.
That's not going to happen, but this *is* a "Legal" thread, and I'm
allowed to float a theory, aren't I?...
> And the law didn't ignore her fraud. Did any production company go after
> her? Do we know what charges Traci faced? Or what DA chose to or not to
> press them?
I recall one article at the time saying she was allowed to "skate" on all
possible charges in return for her input on 'Kiddy Porn' prosecutions.
As far as lawsuits go, I assume nobody bothered...
> > I want a clause excluding fraud to be added. Seems fair.
> >
> > What's the problem with fairness, that I need to go elsewhere to find
> > it?...
>
> The problem isn't with fairness. The problem is that Traci movies star
> at least one girl who is legally (Not saying if this is right or wrong)
> under age. Regardless of how she got in them, they ARE what they are. If
> I were to shoot some new girl with a good fake ID, only to find she was
> 16, should I be able to sell that video? She lied, so by your exemption,
> I'm free to make money on something that is illegal. (You are a bright
> enough person to see that fraud is a loophole that the porn biz would
> exploit faster than you could dust off your VCR to play Traci movies.)
The precedent would have been set. Roughly translated: fool me once,
shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
I don't include Alexandria Quinn in this, since by the time she was
around, nobody should have been allowed to use the "we didn't know she'd
try a fake ID" line. Nobody *should* have gotten away without jail, but
I don't recall anything there. Perhaps the Supreme Court decision is
protecting *all* producers forever?
Same with that gay porn kid a year or so ago: anybody who hired him
should be doing jail time, because the only fools allowed off should be
the first ones.
Precedent. Already set. Not to be repeated...
> > Which law? The "one" 'Kiddy Porn' law, or the others which make fraud
> > illegal?
>
> Yes, fraud is illegal, but does that make illegal tapes legal? The fact,
> again is that Traci movies ARE kiddie porn.
Hmmm. What I need is a bigger, faster Internet, so when I go looking for
case law references, I find them.
What I need is some case where an underage kid used fake ID to buy
something, and the court held the contract enforceable due to fraud.
That would give me the precedent I need to extend it further, and have
the "over 18" label on her tapes given weight over her actual age.
Sure, any judge who wants to get reelected would laugh it out of court,
but every once in a while fairness does win...
> Go back to the example. I buy oregeno, only to find out it's pot. Should
> the feds let me use the pot in my pasta? After all, the guy who sold it
> to me is guilty of fraud.
See, I *know* I've heard that the intent to buy drugs has caused
convictions on cases just like this, but I can't say they stood up to
appeals...
> > If I was to just give up on something I *believe* is The Right Thing,
> > it seems to me that would be a slippery slope to just not giving a shit
> > about anything.
>
> I guess I was trying to figure out how you can think it's the 'right
> thing' when it clearly has no legs. You're saying that it should be OK
> to watch a 15 year old because she lied about her age. That might work
> if you happened to be in bed with an underaged girl who lied to you on
> the spot. But the fact is, you 'know' she is 15.
I'm sitting here, trying to remember any 'childlike' characteristics in
Traci's films, or why I should suddenly throw my hands in the air and
weep that I was a fool to find a child attractive.
It isn't working, since I was conditioned over the course of two years
that she was an adult. As such, that's the way I think of her now.
That *is* what's missing when I think of her: a 'child' to be protected
from having her abuse recorded.
All I really see is people screwed out of good tapes like "Love Bites",
with no recourse to keep them...
> > What *I* believe is right is that nothing Traci did should be illegal,
> > because it was created under fraudulent circumstances. Period. No
> > ongoing 16-year-olds doing porn.
>
> Sorry, just pointing out that you can't change a law to let one through.
Uh, well, yes, you can.
You write up a sentence amending the law, you get a bunch of people in
the Congress and the Senate to say "yes", and it's changed.
Or you get a majority of the Supreme Court to hold that the law is
unenforceable when it concerns certain instances involving fraud.
Nobody will *do* it, but that's the way it would be done...
> > You and I always seem to find these issues, somehow...
>
> My bad, I shouldn't have asked you anything.
Mike Paul
No, what you shouldn't have done is pressed once I gave my opinion, and
this thread would have been over by now...
Mike Paul
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 02:04:35 GMT, Mike Paul <mp...@sc.rr.com> wrote:
> >In a perfect world, a court *could* declare that, since Traci gave false
> >information to intentionally cause 'Kiddy Porn' to be made, her scenes
> >*were* made by someone of legal age. This follows the same logic that
> >got dozens of guys like Peter North out of 'statutory rape' trouble: what
> >was known (fake proof) counts more that what wasn't (her real age.)
>
> Were any of the actors who fucked Traci threatened with statutory rape
> charges?
Given that almost every White guy working at the time except John Holmes
had done scenes with her, it could have been g/g-city for a long time.
Prosecutors apparently figured that her fake ID was a good enough excuse,
and didn't *file* any I heard of...
> >Characters portrayed by Nora Kuzma would be declared effectively over-18,
> >and therefore there would be no more 'Kiddy Porn'...
>
> There's no way they were going to allow her under age films to stay on
> the market.
Sure. Guaranteed.
It's not like I expect any change in that status...
> Torris
Mike Paul
But when people just roll over when the Law stands against them, I think
back to OJ, and remember that sometimes what seems like BS wins the
day...
Frank Simmons
>> Were any of the actors who fucked Traci threatened with statutory rape
>> charges?
>
>Given that almost every White guy working at the time except John Holmes
>had done scenes with her, it could have been g/g-city for a long time.
Just out of curiosity, what's the age of consent for sex in Califonia? Not the
age for making porn, but the age for sex. Most of Traci's movies were filmed
after she had turned 16 - there were only a few while she was 15 - so I'm not
sure all that many guys would have fallen under statutory rape statutes
(assuming age of consent is 16, like it is in many states.) Maybe only Tommy
boy.
Frank
** Traci, Ginger, Kristara, Nikki, Blondi, Ali, Amber; Those were the days! **
Ribald Poet
sex in Califonia? Not the age for making porn, but the age for sex.<<
Eighteen is the age of consent in California.
>Most of Traci's movies were filmed after she had turned 16 - there were only a
few while she was 15 - so I'm not sure all that many guys would have fallen
under statutory rape statutes (assuming age of consent is 16, like it is in
many states.) Maybe only Tommy boy.<<
Well Frank, and not to be a wise-ass or nuthin', but your assumption is
wrong--- EVERYONE of those guys *legally* could have faced the wrath of the
law... as to why nothing was pursued, one can only speculate (but then again,
who really knows that it wasn't?... something could have preliminarily been
investigated that the public doesn't know about & only those parties involved
would know)---- my best guess, of the top of my head, as to WHY nothing
apparently came of it (in terms of legal charges against the guys) was that the
prosecutors determined it was a complex, sordid lil' situation that Traci had
wove and they weren't about to touch it with the proverbial 10ft pole (invest
resources, money, time, etc) Besides, if you charge ONE guy, gotta charge 'em
all, don't ya?
Nawwww, better to let it wither & die of its own accord.
...and briefly, for the record; in the USA, twenty-seven states deem 16 as the
legal age of consent; while in fifteen states, 18 is the legal age; seven
states call 17 legal while Hawaii "cums" in the lowest at age 14.
(additionally, nine states draw a distinction between AOC for male and AOC for
female; in every one of these states, the AOC for females is *higher*)
Ribald Poet
Grainy picture, lame story and robotic chicks...
succinctly describe the VIVID flicks.
Mike Paul
> >From: Mike Paul mp...@sc.rr.com
>
> >> Were any of the actors who fucked Traci threatened with statutory rape
> >> charges?
> >
> >Given that almost every White guy working at the time except John Holmes
> >had done scenes with her, it could have been g/g-city for a long time.
>
> after she had turned 16 - there were only a few while she was 15 - so I'm not
> sure all that many guys would have fallen under statutory rape statutes
> (assuming age of consent is 16, like it is in many states.) Maybe only Tommy
> boy.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm says 18, with no sign it
might have been lower before...
> Frank
Mike Paul
I doubt the age will do anything but go *up* as time goes by...
Frank Simmons
>Eighteen is the age of consent in California.
Thank you.
>Well Frank, and not to be a wise-ass or nuthin', but your assumption is
>wrong--- EVERYONE of those guys *legally* could have faced the wrath of the
>law...
Well, that's why I asked. I'm surprised the age of consent is that high in
California, however. It seems somewhat illogical to me.
>my best guess, of the top of my head, as to WHY nothing
>apparently came of it (in terms of legal charges against the guys) was that
>the
>prosecutors determined it was a complex, sordid lil' situation that Traci had
>wove and they weren't about to
>touch it with the proverbial 10ft pole (invest
>resources, money, time, etc)
I would agree with that. I only asked because I didn't know what the age was
on the left coast.
>...and briefly, for the record; in the USA, twenty-seven states deem 16 as
>the
>legal age of consent; while in fifteen states, 18 is the legal age; seven
>states call 17 legal while Hawaii "cums" in the lowest at age 14.
>(additionally, nine states draw a distinction between AOC for male and AOC
>for
>female; in every one of these states, the AOC for females is *higher*)
See - over half of the states do not consider sex with a 16 year old to be
statutory rape. I was just wondering if California was one of those.
As far as having separate AOC for the sexes, somehow I think that would be an
interesting constitutional question. But, since females mature more rapidly
than males, if one has separate AOC based on sex, shouldn't the male AOC be the
higher one?
Frank
** Traci, Ginger, Kristara, Nikki, Blondi, Ali, Amber; Those were the days! **
Ribald Poet
>As far as having separate AOC for the sexes, somehow I think that would be an
interesting constitutional question.<<
I concur... perhaps someday we'll see a case that challenges the
constitutionality of such laws (probably would have to arise out of someone's
"defense case", I would imagine)
>But, since females mature more rapidly than males, if one has separate AOC
based on sex, shouldn't the male AOC be
the higher one?<<
Ahhh, but Frank... I think you're forgetting something--- IMHO, the disparity
stems from absolutely *no consideration* of biological maturation, but rather,
the males (predominately) that make up the laws of the land set the AOC for
females higher as a pseudo "chastity belt" (if you will)
But males shouldn't be deprived of things "boys do", should they? (consequently
the lower male AOC)
Ribald Poet
Luis Cypher is a worthless hack,
EXTREME should get their money back!
For his movies blow and that's a fact---
say Cypher, QUIT the biz... and kick the crack!
LT
rogr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> And the law didn't ignore her fraud. Did any production company go
> after her? Do we know what charges Traci faced? Or what DA chose to
> or not to press them?
Would that have been Ira Reiner? (if not, I was kind of out of touch
with L.A. politics then, living in the San Francisco area).
Didn't Mr. Jim Soutar (South) do a bit of jail time over the whole
Traci affair?
Or does he claim that just to make himself look good? :-)
LT