Are you going to Jail ??

[basschick]

at the risk of being unpopular, that's why it makes sense to get i.d. on models who aren't obviously over 30. legal issues aside, do you really want to unknowingly put minors on your site?

and who should law enforcement come after if you have cp on your site?

i think that a more realistic workable body of laws would help here but with or without laws, it's important to have your own guidelines that are also realistic. there is one str8 foot site that really looks great to me but the models looked edgy so i decided to pass because the bottom line is there's no way to know unless a very reliable sponsor gives you the i.d.s.

[maxpower]

I know this Justin guys a freak dick head, but twink sites can not go around passing out every models ID to anyone that joins the affiliate program. What are we going to say when one of these freak get some guys ID and kill/rape him at his house? Or if we want to protect some of the content sources we have? Personally this whole save the children crap is getting really old. Hell if you think everyone should just pass out ID’s I might as well post them on all my sites I am sure the viewers would like to see that too, but again I am sure someone would get hurt.

[LiveTwinksCam]

I read and saw clips of Justin's site from this board and at the bottom of the site it said 2257 Compliant.

So what are you suppose to do if he was breaking the law and lying to people saying he was 18?

The DOJ should be going after his ass, he was the one lying to people and telling everyone he was 18.

It was Justin's job, the owner of the site to make sure him and his models were 18+ and to make sure he had their id and was ACTUALLY 2257 Compliant, which he wasn't. So it should fall right back on his lying ass again.

Luckily I didn't know anything about him or his site until Oprah and we don't do affiliate programs, so we are covered. But I do feel sorry for those that did get involved with his site.

[collegeboyslive]

at the risk of being unpopular, that's why it makes sense to get i.d. on models who aren't obviously over 30. legal issues aside, do you really want to unknowingly put minors on your site?

i think you misunderstood. I said an affiliate link, so these perfectly legal sites were sigining up asd affiliates to justins site and pushing traffic to his site, that clearly stated that all models were 18 and over.

its scraey that the affiliates should be held acountable for the dishonist actions of another that is really beyond their control.

[Xstr8guy]

As Patti said, "At the risk of being unpopular"... I never send a click to an affiliate site that sets off my pedophilia alarm. Having said that, 75% of the twink sites I have seen make me feel like a bad uncle.

Even if a site does have legal IDs for every single model but the models are doe-eyed, 5 foot tall, 100 pounds, smooth and underdeveloped... they might as well be 12 years old because the site owner is courting disaster. With the current political atmosphere in America, it is not the time to push the boundaries and draw attention to yourself.

[maxpower]

Ya I with you guys who cares if they are legal or not, if they might possibly look a bit like they could be under 18 to anyone I would not even thing about promoting that site. Hell I don’t think ANYONE should promote a twink site of any kind, all twink sites are just made for pedophiles that can no longer get real CP. Its about time we start rounding up these boarder line CP promoters and put them all in prison camps where we all know they belong. :2ymca:

[abostonboy]

Aren't some already in jail. Like the guy that marketed his sites and some other cam sites. :cry:

[gaybucks_chip]

Ya I with you guys who cares if they are legal or not, if they might possibly look a bit like they could be under 18 to anyone I would not even thing about promoting that site.

Right. You who were arguing last week in favor of being able to use language about "young boys who've never had sex" on your tour. Uh-huh.

[Xstr8guy]

Ya I with you guys who cares if they are legal or not, if they might possibly look a bit like they could be under 18 to anyone I would not even thing about promoting that site. Hell I don’t think ANYONE should promote a twink site of any kind, all twink sites are just made for pedophiles that can no longer get real CP. Its about time we start rounding up these boarder line CP promoters and put them all in prison camps where we all know they belong. :2ymca:

Did no one else catch the irony in max's post? I'm pretty sure he would like everyone to stop promoting twink sites so he could have a monopoly on the market.

No, I didn't think max was capable of irony either... but there you go. :nowords:

[gaybucks_chip]

I know this Justin guys a freak dick head, but twink sites can not go around passing out every models ID to anyone that joins the affiliate program.

Another brilliant statement demonstrating Max's ignorance.

If you'd studied the new 2257 regs and ruling letters issued by the Justice Department, you'd know that

(a) the new regs (although currently enjoined from enforcement) REQUIRE a sponsor to provide affiliates with 2257 records if there is any explicit content on the affiliate's site (even a banner that's explicit); and

(b) Justice has said in a letter to FSC attorneys that redacted IDs (since I doubt you know what that means, it's IDs with no addresses on them) are acceptable to meet 2257 requirements imposed on secondary producers. We (and all responsible webmasters) are acting as though the injunction could be lifted any day and have prepared redacted 2257 materials for the few webmasters we've licensed explicit content to that we'll make available if it becomes required.

Now note that none of this would protect an affiliate signing up, as not all sponsors will be willing to provide IDs, and I swear some of the eastern European IDs I've seen look awfully suspicious. But reputable programs should be willing to provide information on request to recognized affiliates.

[djdez]

(a) the new regs (although currently enjoined from enforcement) REQUIRE a sponsor to provide affiliates with 2257 records if there is any explicit content on the affiliate's site (even a banner that's explicit); and

chip, perhaps you were informed by your attornies differently or maybe meant it in a different way. The new regs do not require a sponsor to provide affiliates with 2257 records, they require the affiliate to posess the 2257 records for the material provided to them by the sponsor. Thats a big difference.

[gaybucks_chip]

chip, perhaps you were informed by your attornies differently or maybe meant it in a different way. The new regs do not require a sponsor to provide affiliates with 2257 records, they require the affiliate to posess the 2257 records for the material provided to them by the sponsor. Thats a big difference.

Oops... you're quite correct... according to 2257, it's the affiliate's responsibility to request and keep the records, and that IS a big difference. That's my error.

My main point to Max, though, was that if a sponsor is providing sexually explicit content for an affiliate, s/he has to make the records available (IF the injunction is lifted) for an affiliate who requests them, so the whole point about not providing IDs that Max was making was rather pointless, unless he's only going to provide non-explicit content. But thanks for the clarification... I know there are a lot of lurkers, and 2257 is a mess, so it's important to disseminate correct information.