Announcement

**Berzerker** · January 7, 2006, 22:15

Where is all that? I just got a message saying the site was closed by the feds for not having proper bookkeeping which I assume means insufficient files showing proof of age.

**Apocalypse** · January 7, 2006, 22:24

Originally posted by Berzerker
Where is all that? I just got a message saying the site was closed by the feds for not having proper bookkeeping which I assume means insufficient files showing proof of age.

Well that is what happened. Porn sites have always been able to be shut down if they didn't have good enough age protection. They had problems the feds found out about. Instead of shutting them down, they were given an opportunity to fix it and they didn't.

I'm all for boobs, and think some of those laws are silly, but you have to take the arguement up with what has been going on with porn sights since Clinton was in office, not anything with Bush.

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 7, 2006, 22:50

Originally posted by Berzerker
If these people were producing kiddie porn they'd be getting prosecuted. The gov't doesn't have the evidence to prosecute so they put the burden of proof on the site. Prove those breasts are 18+ year old? This is a legalistic, i.e., technical way to turn upside down the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

I wonder about this as it applies to, say, illegal immigration. If an employer turns his head and doesn't check to see if his workers are legal, should that get him out of trouble? If the government says you have to verify your workers are legal citizens or else you get slammed, why is that such a problem?

**Berzerker** · January 7, 2006, 22:50

When it started doesn't matter to me, I care only if its happening. If what you said is true about parents and children effectively testifying the site had underage boobs because their kids put their own images out on the net, then the site shouldn't be complaining at all. The gov't is being generous and logical by not prosecuting them (I assume it aint kiddie porn, just older minors with boobs worthy of rating, and mistaking for adult boobs).

But if the gov't is shutting down sites for not having proof of age for every image, that shifts the burden of proof onto the sites. In fact, requiring those records violates the principle of self-incrimination. Thats like requiring a marijuana tax stamp, you admit to or provide evidence of a crime by complying with the other law. I'd have to think about this a bit more, but you cant be compelled by law to admit to a crime.Telling criminals they have to keep a diary of their crimes to be used in court against them and then prosecuting people based on those diaries violates self incrimination.

I think

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 7, 2006, 22:54

But it's not compelling them to admit to a crime. It's saying they have to have a system in place to make sure that what they are posting are by those who are over 18.

**Berzerker** · January 7, 2006, 23:00

I wonder about this as it applies to, say, illegal immigration. If an employer turns his head and doesn't check to see if his workers are legal, should that get him out of trouble? If the government says you have to verify your workers are legal citizens or else you get slammed, why is that such a problem?

I agree this is widespread, but in the case of the identity papers, why are business owners required to enforce a policy the gov't cant or wont enforce at the border? These laws effectively create a citzenry police force and people are drafted against their will. We're being told we will be punished if we dont do the gov't surveillance for the government. That makes us servants of gov't, not owners...

**Apocalypse** · January 7, 2006, 23:02

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I wonder about this as it applies to, say, illegal immigration. If an employer turns his head and doesn't check to see if his workers are legal, should that get him out of trouble? If the government says you have to verify your workers are legal citizens or else you get slammed, why is that such a problem?

I would just think negligence would apply. If their registration for ratemyboobs is about the same as for ratemykitten, then you could consider it negligence.

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 7, 2006, 23:03

Originally posted by Berzerker
I agree this is widespread, but in the case of the identity papers, why are business owners required to enforce a policy the gov't cant or wont enforce at the border? These laws effectively create a citzenry police force and people are drafted against their will. We're being told we will be punished if we dont do the gov't surveillance for the government. That makes us servants of gov't, not owners...

Because the alternative is a massive rise in taxes as the government tries to get more funds to hire border guards to guard every 500 yards of border.

**Apocalypse** · January 7, 2006, 23:03

You can't leave a weapon unattended or in easy reach of someone to commit a crime.

**Berzerker** · January 7, 2006, 23:10

But it's not compelling them to admit to a crime. It's saying they have to have a system in place to make sure that what they are posting are by those who are over 18.

And if their files show a 17 year old modelled? Thats self incrimination, keep a diary of your crimes for the court or we will prosecute you for not keeping a diary.

**joncha** · January 7, 2006, 23:14

That is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.

Having underaged models is illegal, and you must keep records to prove that you are not. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 7, 2006, 23:15

Originally posted by Berzerker
And if their files show a 17 year old modelled? Thats self incrimination, keep a diary of your crimes for the court or we will prosecute you for not keeping a diary.

Annnnd who said they were turning over their files to the government? You are assuming waaaay too much. All the government is asking is for some good age monitoring software and that's it. They aren't asking to go through the files.

Oh, and there are plenty of places where the government can demand corporations release their files, even if they show some illegal activities. How do you think the government got Enron? After all, since the corporation is a seperate legal entity, releasing its files isn't self-incrimination, because one legal person is incrimating another legal person.

**Berzerker** · January 7, 2006, 23:15

Because the alternative is a massive rise in taxes as the government tries to get more funds to hire border guards to guard every 500 yards of border.

Another alternative is securing the borders or just letting people come and go. I know why pols did it, its easier, but it still violates principles this nation was founded upon.

You can't leave a weapon unattended or in easy reach of someone to commit a crime.

Huh?

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 7, 2006, 23:19

Originally posted by Berzerker
Another alternative is securing the borders or just letting people come and go. I know why pols did it, its easier, but it still violates principles this nation was founded upon

As I stated in my last post, how is it self incrimination to release the files of a business, when the business and its CEO are two seperate legal persons. When the person is acting as trustee of the business, he is "wearing a seperate hat" (as the language goes). He is acting as the business's representative rather than for himself.

**Berzerker** · January 7, 2006, 23:25

Having underaged models is illegal, and you must keep records to prove that you are not. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

You must have records proving your innocense, seems pretty straightforward to me. Anyone could be an illegal alien, should we all be required to carry citizen papers and punished when we dont have the papers?

Announcement

RateMyBoobies.com - The Newest Battle in Free Speech

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment