i have two opinions
1.) this is bad because who the fuck wants to go through everything on their (porn) site and tag it with this info.
2.) this is good because this underage kiddie porn can finally be identified as being ilegal without having to track the girl down and finding out her age. if shes ilegal the site cant give her real info wich means it can be taken down. (not just kiddie porn but any pornography wich is ilegal under US law.)
thats how i understand it atleast, didnt read much of it i have a short attention span.
edit: i cant seem to find any links that validate this other than this kids live journal and links to adult sites and then some people put links to msn and usatoday articles about yahoo closing chat rooms named "13 year old girls for older men" located under the "educatoin" category wich didnt really seem to even begin to touch the subject of what this kid wrote in his lj.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by usatoday.com
Yahoo requires users to agree not to "harm minors in any way" or make available any content that is "unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, ... or otherwise objectionable."
|
doesnt seem like a new law to me seems like yahoo is enforcing there terms of service and if they only stop horny old men from exposing themselves on camera because they were forced to by the government doesn't seem like ive lost any "right" that i wanted in the first place.
this almost seems like anti-bush propaganda spawned in some porn community and made its way into a couple of crappy free speech sites news. i am admitting right now i have nothing to base this on and i am not saying it to be true. its just odd i cant find any main stream news outlet that mentions this. if you search the net you just find adult porn sites and less than mediocre free speech sites.
i cant stress enough that im not denying what he said to be true, im just asking if you could suply a more reliable source. all i can gather is that they were trying to pass a law but couldnt find alot of detail on exactly what it consisted of and couldnt find anyone complaining a unjust law was passed. i would like to read what the main stream media's take on this is.