NO PICTURES OR VIDEOS OF MALES UNDER 18 YEARS OLD, Rule change Options

[ladsnet]

Over the past couple of weeks we have received requests to remove a number of pictures, from both the subject themselves and their legal representation. The content of these requests raised a number of issues regarding the pictures we allow.
We have since taken further advice and determined a need to change the rules.

With immediate effect, you must not post still or moving images of persons under the age of 18 or images of persons which were taken before they reached the age of 18.

Any topic containing pictures or video of persons under 18 or with valid suspicions of being under 18 will be edited or removed by the moderating team.


fmforums was never intended to be an 'adult site' and this is still the case. We allow members from 13+ and our rules strictly prohibit any pornographic or obscene images. However, with a large worldwide membership we have responsibilities regarding the content of topics and how, when combined with user comments, these can be interpreted by the wider audience.


Thanks

[Struan]

Thats a pity though it is fully understandable and I had been wondering for a while if that might happen here. A lot of the other male photo forums had gone 18+ a while back so that was a bit of a selling point for here e.g. posting Bieber well before the others could etc.

[Astron]

Finally, good move.

[harry64]

The world has gone censorship mad. Big brother has scored yet another goal.

[Struan]

What about all the photos on famousmales.com? Plenty of those are below age.

[rarebit]

it's a shame... but if it stops some posters calling others idiotic names because they fancy a 16 or 17 year-old then that's got to be a good thing.

[stretchmonkey]

it's a shame... but if it stops some posters calling others idiotic names because they fancy a 16 or 17 year-old then that's got to be a good thing.

The LEGAL age has never stopped them...it's how old they THINK someone looks, so a young looking 18 year old will still get the silly comments!

[rarebit]

it's a shame... but if it stops some posters calling others idiotic names because they fancy a 16 or 17 year-old then that's got to be a good thing.

The LEGAL age has never stopped them...it's how old they THINK someone looks, so a young looking 18 year old will still get the silly comments!

The sad thing is that you're right. Oh well...

[Astron]

...it's how old they THINK someone looks

Yeah cause it's all just imagination and not like the fact they look extremely young is their main appeal to some.
I mean surely it's mere coincidence than the age of those teen celebs is always given in the title.

[Struan]

That is a pretty standard was of introducing a person. Like on the bbc news site the first thing they say about someone likely to be unknown is age/occupation.

This post has been edited by Struan: Aug 5 2012, 16:36

[SeamusMacGillicuddy]

If this site is threatened with legal action, and the new rule helps to prevent such a thing from happening, then I will support that.

[Astron]

That is a pretty standard was of introducing a person. Like on the bbc news site the first thing they say about someone likely to be unknown is age/occupation.

It really is not especially looking at how hardly anyone feels the need to mention the age of a celeb once he's over 20.

[Struan]

Looking at the first page of view now I see someone in their 20s with age occupation listed. It is also likely to be skewed by the fact that those in 20s plus probably have built up sufficient recognition to not need a mini bio at the start of each post.

[PUllio]

This makes no difference to me, a bit of a shame for the younger members. But these forums are wisely moderated and I am sure there is a reason for this rule, as well as others.

I don't like porn myself (just a personal taste) or fake pictures, so I go to these forums because they are different, just actual pictures that are mostly erotic in the eye of the beholder. On the other hand one cannot deny the lust that is the driving force in sites such as this, and the explicit comments, so I guess pictures of 16-18 year olds are bound to cause controversy.

As a larger issue, though, the present denial of teenage sexuality will not have a happy ending IMO.

[bigcore]

some 17yo allows hot pics to be taken of himself at a pro-photoshoot, they get posted on facebook, lots of girls say dirty things. and that's fine.

it gets posted on here and suddenly because it's lads saying things it's a problem. that's homophobic isn't it.

pity fmf can't operate an opt-in for stars that want the publicity. (aka one direction).

wonder if the Phil is worried that the crazy americans will try and extradite him; or if an arrest of a certain someone has got him spooked.

[BigBoy51]

i can understand the administrators of this site pulling/not posting photos for
legal reasons. for instance copyright infringement. for the longest time the age
for celebrities was 16. now i have not seen any photos of an actor/celebrity
taken when he was between 16-18 posted on this site that was legally dicey
in terms of content. so i think the certain people who asked for certain photos
to be removed whether the celebs themselves or the copyright holder simply
don't want the photos on a gay website. it has nothing to do with the legal
diceyness of the photo's content.

i'm betting the adminstrators of this site will in the near future up the minimum age
limit to 35.

[gun_747]

It's a good and necessary move.

Thanks moderating team.

[Nosferatu]

Personally I don't disagree with this move, as at the end of the day all that matters is the integrity of these forums and in all honesty the new rule only affects a tiny number of posts on here.

The one thing I do find disturbing though is that this move is a conservative one and that is always a bad thing, always feels like a step backwards. I think its also interesting to note that sites similar to this one hosted by other European countries don't seem to have the interference or influence from wider outside conservative entities that we seem to be increasingly susceptable to here in the UK.

or if an arrest of a certain someone has got him spooked.

Whats that all about then?

[stulancs]

The law that makes the posting of under-18 questionable has been in place since 2003, so it's a surprise it's taken this long to change the rules.

[darthbackup]

it's an easy rule to follow and it keeps people out of hot water ...

this site wouldn't be legal probably if it were in the US. The site contains nudity and allows members 13-17 y/o to join ... a D.A. would pounce on that pretty quick here in some jurisdictions. I of course don't agree with it but that's how some of the indecency laws are set up.