madhatter

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

So, basicly that means, that for all of the content in the pics forum, you would need documentation of the age of every woman (or man). If you failed to produce this documentation, the site owner would be thrown into prision for 5 years!

It is named something like "The Child Pornography Protection Act", and any senator who would vote against it would be labled a pedophile. It's the same as the Patriot Act was, if you voted against it, people would think you were a terrorist. Thank's George Bush! And also, one can't forget to thank Alberto Gonzales, the US Attorney General appointed by George Bush. If you voted for Bush, this is your fault. And don't think that ex-post facto laws can save you either, WR could still be shut down, even though the law was just passed. Who needs that constitution any ways! Bill of rights? What's that thing?

Lucky Bob

How about quoting the original bill, instead of just the one-sentence summary?

Thanks.

madhatter

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...tle=18&sec=2257

That's the original, it was passed in 1992 I believe, but the ammended bill, passed this year does makes it as I said above, If your site cannot produce 10 years of documentation in 30 days.

Juan.©amaney

We do not produce our own pron, therefore the women in pictures are not performers. We are a community made of members that shares the personal content gathered from other websites.

___________________________________________

madhatter

But it's distributed here, it doesn't have to originate here for it to qualify. I don't know what sites like imageshack are going to do...

Juan.©amaney

Whoa...it is NOT distributed here, it is shared here. We are like a person to person network. Members give what they got from other websites for free. Webrats does not distribute, it gives public access to a platform where collectors can share what they have. The membership to the site gives you avatar, bigger PM box, sig etc...its not really a subscription to get more porn.

___________________________________________

madhatter

Well, from what I understood- any place that hosts the images, reguardless of where they came from, would be responsible. I could be mistaken (it's likely that I am, since places like imageshack would get owned). Hopefully WR will be fine though.

Juan.©amaney

Appreciate the concern, but this is what I got from the whole thing:



We are not producing the actual content since we do not have models, cameras, or photographers. This doesn't seem to affect any webpages as they are neither books, magazines, periodicals, video tapes or films...they are online videos.

I think this law is aimed more at the people producing porn videos and magazines etc more than actual websites.

___________________________________________