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

[stulancs]

Actually, no, because all of the content on here is non-sexual. So these are pics which you could quite legally upload to a facebook/flickr album, or order online prints of, or whatever.

So there shouldn't really be any problem at all.

As someone said above, it's the replies the pictures receive. A non-sexual image of someone under 18 can be made legally pornographic by the context it's presented in.

[jumbler]

Actually, no, because all of the content on here is non-sexual. So these are pics which you could quite legally upload to a facebook/flickr album, or order online prints of, or whatever.

So there shouldn't really be any problem at all.

As someone said above, it's the replies the pictures receive. A non-sexual image of someone under 18 can be made legally pornographic by the context it's presented in.

I was only dimly aware of this. I thought it related to situations where there was a semi-clothed/naked person, or they were in an 'adult' setting. I didn't think it related to otherwise 'innocent' pics.

Which only goes to underline how totalitarian the law is. Do you know if there's been any case law that's upheld that view??

[minibw]

As someone said above, it's the replies the pictures receive. A non-sexual image of someone under 18 can be made legally pornographic by the context it's presented in.

But then those comments should be banned, not the pictures themselves, yeah? We're talking about screencaps of legal-age actors from TV programs that they'd appeared on and photoshoots that are widely available in magazines.

I remember when I first visited this site way back whenever as a wee gay boy, there really wasn't any policing of the content and, yeah, that really wasn't the right way to go about it; protection of children does come first. And eventually the age-limit for subjects posted was raised to 16 because, yeah, that was the legal, technical age where lads are no longer considered children and therefore made sense. But now, for whatever reason, the age limit has been raised above the legal threshold and I suppose I'm just wondering aloud why we should think there's a need for that. Proper, or overkill?

There's always gonna be folks who think 16 is too young to be gawked at, regardless of sexual content. And there's gonna be folks who think 18 is too young as well. Or 20, or 22, or 24. And then there's those who think no age is appropriate for guys to be gawked at. Personally, I'm faaaar past the age where I care about any teen stars or can even get their names straight, lol. But if we're always going to compromise to those who want to prohibit and censor based on fears, instead of deciding for ourselves what is and isn't appropriate based on rationale and suitability, it's really as good as shutting this place down because someone, somewhere, is gonna want that no matter how much we compromise.

And that's my little ramble from a frequent lurker. Cheers!

This post has been edited by minibw: Aug 6 2012, 01:46

[stulancs]

Actually, no, because all of the content on here is non-sexual. So these are pics which you could quite legally upload to a facebook/flickr album, or order online prints of, or whatever.

So there shouldn't really be any problem at all.

As someone said above, it's the replies the pictures receive. A non-sexual image of someone under 18 can be made legally pornographic by the context it's presented in.

I was only dimly aware of this. I thought it related to situations where there was a semi-clothed/naked person, or they were in an 'adult' setting. I didn't think it related to otherwise 'innocent' pics.

Well think about it this way. If someone published a book of erotic stories and used fully-clothed pictures of children in it, would that be acceptable?

[jumbler]

Actually, no, because all of the content on here is non-sexual. So these are pics which you could quite legally upload to a facebook/flickr album, or order online prints of, or whatever.

So there shouldn't really be any problem at all.

As someone said above, it's the replies the pictures receive. A non-sexual image of someone under 18 can be made legally pornographic by the context it's presented in.

I was only dimly aware of this. I thought it related to situations where there was a semi-clothed/naked person, or they were in an 'adult' setting. I didn't think it related to otherwise 'innocent' pics.

Well think about it this way. If someone published a book of erotic stories and used fully-clothed pictures of children in it, would that be acceptable?

No, but there's sufficient context, as you say, to enable to change the environment (and its audience) to a sexual one.

Having scanned the law, I'm at a loss as to find a direct reference to ordinary (i.e. non-indecent) images of 'children' (i.e. under 18's). I know this is a little academic here, but the law clearly states that for an offence to be committed, the images have to be indecent/sexual, and the subject must be under 18 (or they were known/believed to be under 18), and/or there was a payment for a pornographic/sexual service. Or, again, if the person was in a 'position of trust' towards the child. Or again, if the 'child' was in a position where they would observe sexual acts.

Seeing that only the 'under 18' bit applied(/s) here (everything else being banned - on this site), I'm still struggling to see how/why that would be illegal. It would, if it was placed alongside an illegal image. But as I said, it would be banned here, so that situation shouldn't arise.

Hmmmmmm. Just re-read that, and thought on it. Does that mean that images of two blokes shagging in one post (from a non-pornographic movie or play), make a fully-clothed post of a 17-year-old indecent, then??

This post has been edited by jumbler: Aug 6 2012, 02:14

[fucker1980]

And yet Harry Styles appeared naked at the age of 16 on Xfactor sitting on his bed with just an "X" covering his junk? But that can't be reposted.

And yet at 17 Reece Mastin is half naked on stage every concert and posts near naked pics of himself on Twitter, but that can't be reposted.

SMH...

This post has been edited by fucker1980: Aug 6 2012, 02:29

[SeamusMacGillicuddy]

It's amusing to watch you people argue. The rule has been implemented. Get over it and move on.

[Cov1986]

Finally, good move.

Why?? (or am I missing some sarcasm here?).

Pictures on this site have always been non-pornographic and generally images which have already been on tv or available in other forms of mass media anyway.

I assume this new rule change is down to increasing paedophile hysteria / paranoia and the "wont somebody pleaseeeee think of the children" excuse for censorship/control of everything these days.

I have been looking at this site and similar since I was well under legal 16 myself and I think these changes are a shame for younger members in the 13 to 18 kinda age bracket...... although fully understandable if the site is in danger of getting into hot water.

Kinda sad that we have a situation where shirtless pictures of a 17yo Tom Daley or Harry Styles are effectively lumped together in the same category as child abuse images because of 'child protection' or 'legal reasons'.

[darker_phoenix]

It was hardly 13-18 year olds commenting on the pictures of the under 18s.

[AdrienAsche]

A lot of you are confusing censorship with complex legal matters. For those of you lamenting the poor teenage members, teens have no problem finding fodder for themselves, obviously. Just think of what boys had to do pre-mass-publication.

I think Phil has been perfectly forthright, and since the rules aren't going to change anyway, I don't understand this hysteria from some members. God forbid you have to find pictures of 17 and under boys...YOURSELVES.

[charlie21]

I'm glad the age has been raised up another two years. Some of the comments you would read on the posts when pictures of 16 year olds were posted were quite disturbing and creepy. It's ok to admire someone, but to post something like "I wanna fuck him so hard" when you're talking about a kid who's 16 or 17 is plain disturbing, particularly when it comes from a much older adult.

[nantha]

I remember when I first visited this site way back whenever as a wee gay boy, there really wasn't any policing of the content and, yeah, that really wasn't the right way to go about it; protection of children does come first. And eventually the age-limit for subjects posted was raised to 16 because, yeah, that was the legal, technical age where lads are no longer considered children and therefore made sense. But now, for whatever reason, the age limit has been raised above the legal threshold and I suppose I'm just wondering aloud why we should think there's a need for that. Proper, or overkill?

No, that's wrong. 16 is the legal age of consent in respect of sexual activity between consenting people, however a person is not considered an adult in law until they are 18. Therefore, posting photos of people aged 16 and 17 means you are, whether you agree with it or not, posting photos of children. And you know what that means, particularly when members keep announcing in no uncertain terms that this is indeed a 'wank site'. In law it makes no difference whatsoever whether the photos are sexual or not, nude or fully clothed, it is the intention of the viewer that matters. Therefore this change to the rules makes absolute sense and is essential.

[blake2108]

Would someone in the background of a photo who is under 18 mean that the picture is prohibited? Fans clambering for an autograph, or audience members at a concert? This could mean an end to One Direction posts!

Whilst I wouldn't mind a decrease in One Direction pics, I've always edited out the face of minors in pics I've posted before, which isn't difficult to do...

It's a good move. Whilst being 18 myself I didn't mind some of the pics of the younger lads, but some of the comments were a bit uncomfortable to read...

[daikaioshin]

To be honest I don't see why this is such a concern.

I agree that some of the comments made towards some of the younger end of the allowed FM's were quite... eye opening shall we say; I'm not suggesting that 16/17yo's don't have sexual thoughts or feelings, but some of the comments made me cringe a little.

Whatever the reason; legal, moral... whatever. It's here, so whether you support it or not you'll have to.

Totally agree with what AdrienAsche says RE resources. how do you think we found the pics to begin with? If there's an FM who is 17 you wanna look out it's not hard to find them. Just not on here anymore.

Don't see why that's a problem!

[demc7]

I was referring to all the pre 18 Daley pics that have ran here since 2010, etc....and ladsnet- you just don't like me, question seemed relevant to me! Why is it out of the realm to wonder who did the complaining/requested pics be removed......

[daikaioshin]

Surely if it was Tom or his management they'd have got on it far sooner?

Also, Nos, you raise a good point... Although, to be fair, the age limit has been a long discussed issue, even in the short time I've been here!

[Tiuri]

As far as I know, the decision was based on legal advice, not on any specific complaints or requests to remove pictures.

[Dicer25]

Bye bye Jack Laugher.

Their pictures are posted all over Facebook, Twitter and a thousand blogs on Tumblr and Instagram yet here it's a problem. Huge pot of BS. It isn't like the youths are naked. If I find out the one or ones that bitched I'll see to it that I never watch their stuff or listen to their stuff again.

[bigcore]

As far as I know, the decision was based on legal advice, not on any specific complaints or requests to remove pictures.

Don't think any right minded lawyer would not give such advise, as legal advise is normally very cautious as they have to cover themselves against litigation. But it doesn't mean they are right.

It might have been more sensible to ban images of 16/17yo while they are under 18. But allow such pictures be posted after their 18th. That way this forums couldn't be accused of sexual harassment of minors, and images would still as always be legal.

As it now stands the forum archive is the biggest contradiction in history.

[Fcukleo]

good rule change! it would be nice if the models rule were relaxed a bit - so that models in adverts for CK, Giorgio Armani, etc could be posted