LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

New Lit Rules

Here is the FAQ section, link.

If you don't remove them if they break the guidelines, you can bet they will be removed by the site as and when they get reported.

Failure to remove them makes the site liable to prosecution under US federal statutes, and if convicted there are fines and even jail time possible.
 
I am completely amazed at what they claim are U.S. Federal regulations about what can be posted online. I don't believe the regs or statutes, if correct can be enforced under current Supreme Court decisions on the subject. I have a bit of understanding in that area as I am an Attorney and have studied and written on the U.S. Constitution. I think the moderators of this site need to consult legal counsel before taking any action to discourage free speech, which includes posting pics.

just my 3 cents worth.
 
Pleasureboy2 said:
I am completely amazed at what they claim are U.S. Federal regulations about what can be posted online. I don't believe the regs or statutes, if correct can be enforced under current Supreme Court decisions on the subject. I have a bit of understanding in that area as I am an Attorney and have studied and written on the U.S. Constitution. I think the moderators of this site need to consult legal counsel before taking any action to discourage free speech, which includes posting pics.

just my 3 cents worth.
Click to expand...

I agree, but it looks like they don't have any choice...
Its too bad, though. There goes my am pics thread. *sigh*
 
Pleasureboy2 said:
I am completely amazed at what they claim are U.S. Federal regulations about what can be posted online. I don't believe the regs or statutes, if correct can be enforced under current Supreme Court decisions on the subject. I have a bit of understanding in that area as I am an Attorney and have studied and written on the U.S. Constitution. I think the moderators of this site need to consult legal counsel before taking any action to discourage free speech, which includes posting pics.

just my 3 cents worth.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the country that the site is hosted is what determines juristiction, and Lit is hosted in the US, it is not about the regulation of the whole of the WWW by the Feds, but about sites hosted inside the USA being bound by the laws here.
 
Ezzy said:
My understanding is that the country that the site is hosted is what determines juristiction, and Lit is hosted in the US, it is not about the regulation of the whole of the WWW by the Feds, but about sites hosted inside the USA being bound by the laws here.
Click to expand...

You are correct in that location determines jurisdiction, however, I was refering to U.S. law. My point in a nut shell (in case I didn't make much sense) was that I don't think U.S. Law is what the moderators of this site think it is. They should consult legal counsel on the issue before banning people, deleting picks. Last time I read up on the subject, the only things that are not allowed are sex pics involving beastality and child porn. Other than that, just about anything is allowed.

Have you looked around the net lately? Lots of sites with lots of pics depicting all kinds of sexual behavior. I can guarantee that more than just "soft porn" is allowed. I can also pretty much guarantee that not all internet sex sites originate outside the U.S.

Okay, this time, just my 4 cents worth. :)
 
Awww, that's too bad. So it means that pics of intercourse will be banned now ?

Does it mean Bisexplicit will focus on pics of her breasts ? :)
 
Just out of curiosity what is the definition of non-photographic images, does photoshopping or digital manipulation (no pun intended) or any other knd of altering of the original, change it`s status as a "photographic image"?
 
Râleclins said:
Does it mean Bisexplicit will focus on pics of her breasts ? :)
Click to expand...

Or my ass, hehe. But, I suppose "blow job" no longer will be a good term for my thread... hmmmm. hehe.
 
bisexplicit said:
I never had a giant cock av...I had a cock-in-my-mouth av, hehe.
Click to expand...

No no no, the one you had before this one, the one of you hugging the giant cock. :D
 
quoll said:
No no no, the one you had before this one, the one of you hugging the giant cock. :D
Click to expand...

*laughs* You mean, the one I was holding in my hand? That wasn't a cello?
 
bisexplicit said:
hehe, I'll have to tell my boyfriend. He'll have an inflated ego for a while. :)
Click to expand...

it ain't just his ego that'll get inflated. :eek:

anyone wanna listen to some yo-yo ma records w/me?
 
Given that the law will most likely be stayed pending this coming court case, I would say it's a bit premature to be changing things at this point... At least that is what has happened with every other US net "decency" law that has been passed (and later overturned).

For more details... http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,67869,00.html?tw=rss****
 
dlj403 said:
Given that the law will most likely be stayed pending this coming court case, I would say it's a bit premature to be changing things at this point... At least that is what has happened with every other US net "decency" law that has been passed (and later overturned).

For more details... http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,67869,00.html?tw=rss****
Click to expand...

Taken from the middle of the article: -

"People are pretty freaked out," said porn webmaster Jim McAnally, who estimates that more than half of hard-core websites, including some of his, will have to dump significant numbers of photos and videos. "This will affect people from top to bottom."

Anyone else think it funny that, the guys name is Mc "Anal" ly, and he thinks it will affect people from top to "bottom"!
 
Please support the Free Speech Colilation, by adding one of these banners to your signature:

PHP: 
[URL=http://www.freespeechcoalition.com][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/Britney_Spears/468x60-animate.gif[/IMG][/URL]
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/Britney_Spears/468x60-animate.gif



PHP: 
[URL=http://www.freespeechcoalition.com][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/Britney_Spears/88x31-animate.gif[/IMG][/URL]
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/Britney_Spears/88x31-animate.gif
 
This just pisses me off.
Censorship doesn't belong in a forum like this... and while I won't be TOO affected by this (I've only a handful of hardcore pics), I'm still pissed. I don't like the idea that I *HAVE* to remove photos that I like, that I had fun making, and that are just photos of natural things... just to please some fucking government that is mixing church and state.
 
Pleasureboy2 said:
You are correct in that location determines jurisdiction, however, I was refering to U.S. law. My point in a nut shell (in case I didn't make much sense) was that I don't think U.S. Law is what the moderators of this site think it is. They should consult legal counsel on the issue before banning people, deleting picks. Last time I read up on the subject, the only things that are not allowed are sex pics involving beastality and child porn. Other than that, just about anything is allowed.

Have you looked around the net lately? Lots of sites with lots of pics depicting all kinds of sexual behavior. I can guarantee that more than just "soft porn" is allowed. I can also pretty much guarantee that not all internet sex sites originate outside the U.S.

Okay, this time, just my 4 cents worth. :)
Click to expand...
As I understand it, the issue isn't that hardcore content isn't allowed, it's that both primary and secondary content providers must have records that verify age and identity for every image displayed. So the site owners must look at and make a copy of an acceptable form of government-sanctioned photo identification before allowing an image to be posted, and make the copies/records available for investigation at a certain place for the required number of hours per week. So a lot of site owners are choosing to remove the photos or take the risk instead of obtaining and maintaining these crazy records (which I think have a purpose in some cases, but the government is taking it way, way, too far). Here's more info on the law, including the relevant pages of the Federal Register.

Hopefully the challenges will be successful though.
 
SweetErika said:
As I understand it, the issue isn't that hardcore content isn't allowed, it's that both primary and secondary content providers must have records that verify age and identity for every image displayed. So the site owners must look at and make a copy of an acceptable form of government-sanctioned photo identification before allowing an image to be posted, and make the copies/records available for investigation at a certain place for the required number of hours per week. So a lot of site owners are choosing to remove the photos or take the risk instead of obtaining and maintaining these crazy records (which I think have a purpose in some cases, but the government is taking it way, way, too far). Here's more info on the law, including the relevant pages of the Federal Register.

Hopefully the challenges will be successful though.
Click to expand...

So a copy of their Driver's Licence would be sufficiant. I still think it a farce that you could be raked across the coals for breaking the laws of a country that you've never even set foot in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Submissive slut wants to know what you think
Replies
9
Views
2K
Hamster
H
P
Women with a toned stomach
Replies
13
Views
2K
SPARTAN047
SPARTAN047
AG31
There's the new nudity policy, and then there's the implementation of it.
Replies
20
Views
1K
Michael_Keaton
M
Rogaland87
Me, some feedback?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Breaking_Dawn_Fantasy
Breaking_Dawn_Fantasy
RoryN
Deplorables ruined porn for everyone at Lit: nude pics have been banned
8 9 10
Replies
231
Views
6K
nowisthetime
nowisthetime
Back
Top