Wetlook World Forum

Current time: Thu 18/04/24 07:29:56 GMT

Translate page FROM -> TO

Translate page TO <- FROM

Message # 9097.1.1.1

Subject: Re: Re: Re: U.S. v UK law - age of models - continuing differences

Date: Wed 10/03/04 08:13:28 GMT

Name: MK

Email: wamtec@compuserve.com

Website:

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help
with running costs: (you can change amount)

Actually....I forgot to mention that this court ruling today has much wider ramifications than merely the issue that the lawsuit related to. What this judge has now done...is created a "new" definition of what pornography is and is not....i.e. his ruling states that it was not pornography because there was "no physical contact". Thereby all nude posing no matter what age is not porn if there is no physical contact.

This has much wider implications that mere the ages of people....it basically now creates a loophole for all nude and erotica sites that merely do "posing" shots (i.e. no physical contact with others") to claim that this is not pornography as now defined by the law.

This is a handy thing to remember...the next time some entity like Paypal tries to shut down your site....or when somebody tries to discriminate against your business because they deem it is as porn....cos now the new definition of porn (at least as far as the u.s. is concerned) is...there has to be physical contact involved....so if you models do not touch others (or themselves in a sexual way)...then your site is not porn...it is artistic glamour.

Of course...what the judge has now ruled is totally consistent with how the nudism world has been treated for years...i.e. nudist camps and videos of nudism at such camps have been totally legal for years (for all age groups)...

Of course the hilarious thing now is...if somebody is just lounging around at a nudist camp then that is perfectly ok for them to be seen on a nudist video....but I guess they had better not play any sports involving "physical contact"...or they might be called porn.,..ha ha..just kidding.

In reply to Message (9097.1.1)

Re: Re: U.S. v UK law - age of models - continuing differences

By Supersyl - Wed 10/03/04 03:41:06 GMT

Website:

Yep! Well said!

In reply to Message (9097.1)

Re: U.S. v UK law - age of models - continuing differences

By Frankie - Wed 10/03/04 03:23:19 GMT

Website:

Thank you for bringing this to our attention MK. It's about time that justice prevails regarding public nudity. I am totally agains child ponography or any kind of photography dispicting underaged nudity - full or partial. However, if a teenager dares to flash her breast and is inadvertently caught on tape, then that's her own fault if it's shown to the world. In a public place - especially a beach - there should be no censorship as to what or who is photographed or vidiotaped. I completely agree with the court's decision.

In reply to Message (9097)

U.S. v UK law - age of models - continuing differences

By MK - wamtec@compuserve.com Wed 10/03/04 02:47:28 GMT

Website: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113808,00.html

Continuing on from Kev note a week ago about the change in UK law in respect to the legal age for nude models in the UK now being retroactively changed from 16 to 18....to confuse things even more...

...now...today in Florida a major decision has been ruled by the courts in the crimnal case against the GIRLS GONE WILD video producers....who are candid film makers who go to Spring Break and Mardi Gras events all over the usa...and mostly film wet t shirt events and girls flashing their boobs. The Feds tried to prosecute the producers of this series, cos some of the girls exposing themselves were apparently under 18....

Anyway...in a major court ruling today...the judge ruled in favor of Girls Gone Wild and threw out the case the Feds tried to bring...stating that under age girls exposing themselves in public is NOT child pornography.

The ruling in this case is the same as in all court cases in recent years regarding public film making....i.e. when you go out in public you have no reasonably expectation of privacy and you are basically responsible for your own actions....so if you flash your boobs and end up on the box cover of a Girls Gone Wild video...thats your fault for exposing yourself in public...and the producers are not responsible to know what your age is. Like it or not....today's court ruling merely upholds that public film making is not illegal.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113808,00.html

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs: (you can change amount)