How to get the point across to you LM.....

[sarettah]

The best way I guess is to say that the thumbs I saw made anything sexed ever did look quite normal. These were beyond the realm of bad taste into the realm of appearing quite blatantly illegal, the type of stuff that years ago made me stop surfing alt.binaries.

There is no defense of them.

They needed to come down and I could care less who's feet got stepped on in he process.

[LadyMischief]

I'm not defending them.. I just would like to see them. Are we talking now about thumbs of underage-looking girls? Or sick sexual acts? I am inciting discussion and simply offering other opinions and outlooks. What I saw MYSELF wasn't offensive/illegal on a general scale, I would LOVE to see what you saw for myself too so I can put the word out, so to speak.

Stop being so convinced I'm on a "side" here and see that I am simply presenting more food for thought. No situation is what it seems on the surface, there are always MULTIPLE factors contributing to a conclusion.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by sarettah

They needed to come down and I could care less who's feet got stepped on in he process.

My only fear in the situation is the implications for the fuure. Who's to say it will stop at teen? With the current political environment in the US and the world, MY biggest concern is that if people give the inch, the government (and others like registrars) will ASSUME the mile. It's not so much about content (I am as disgusted with CP as you are), it's about the principle of the issue at heart. THe way things were handled could open the path for a lot more problems in the future for people who are legitimate as well as illegitimate, if you catch my meaning.

[softball]

"There is no defense of them."

There is always a defense. Even OJ was entitled to that. This is a question of ethics. Things are not always as they appear. Responsiblity is sometimes misplaced. There are principles of British Common Law that we all should live by. Otherwise we have cross burnings, book burnings, and lynch mobs.
I am saying jumping to conclusions leads to misjudgements.
So are you part of the mob or are you for free speech and the rule of law?

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

"There is no defense of them."

There is always a defense. Even OJ was entitled to that. This is a question of ethics. Things are not always as they appear. Responsiblity is sometimes misplaced. There are principles of British Common Law that we all should live by. Otherwise we have cross burnings, book burnings, and lynch mobs.
I am saying jumping to conclusions leads to misjudgements.
So are you part of the mob or are you for free speech and the rule of law?

Switching subjects slightly....

But it is ok to jump to conclusions about directnic and their actions, right?

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

So are you part of the mob or are you for free speech and the rule of law?

I am completely for free speech. Rule of law does not always please me as patience is not one of my virtues

[softball]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Switching subjects slightly....

But it is ok to jump to conclusions about directnic and their actions, right?

The difference is, that they are not suffering a business closure. Nor are they making any kind of defense of said actions. They are the ones that appear to be acting as judge and jury. If there is pressure being applied, then they should be singing this loudly because it is not the appropriate way of dealing with the situation. If this is a business decision, well shame on them. Could you suggest other options?

[softball]

Originally Posted by sarettah

I am completely for free speech. Rule of law does not always please me as patience is not one of my virtues

Shoot first and ask questions later? I would suggest you are in favour of free speech when it suits your needs or is convenient.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by sarettah

I am completely for free speech. Rule of law does not always please me as patience is not one of my virtues

I don't think you could convince me even for ONE second that if this SAME thing happened in a way that COULD potentially directly affect your own business (and honestly, this can open the pandora's box on ALL adult, as if anyone would simply stop at teen) that you wouldn't take a personal interest in the way things went down. You may be a developer now, but you've run sites in the past. How would your opinion of DirectNIC's actions be different if it was you it was affecting? (Not pointing fingers, again just inciting discussion)

[softball]

Personally, I think this is an old school loyalty kind of thing. Circle the waggons and the truth be damned.

[Jace]

oh my fucking god people

let it go, let it play out, see what happens

[softball]

Originally Posted by Jace

oh my fucking god people

let it go, let it play out, see what happens

Why? It should be discussed.

[Jace]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Why? It should be discussed.

i think when all the facts come to light it would be a lot easier to discuss, that way both sides are on the table

right now as it stands there is Mike AI in the mayflower telling everyone what is happening, and everyone who doesn't have access to that site guessing and throwing in their opinion, when obviously there is SO MUCH more than what people know

hell, the google notice alone is enough to make me cringe and not even speak up

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Jace

right now as it stands there is Mike AI in the mayflower telling everyone what is happening, and everyone who doesn't have access to that site guessing and throwing in their opinion, when obviously there is SO MUCH more than what people know

What, if i may ask, is the Mayflower?

[softball]

OK, here is a Free Speech Coalition opinion....excerpts....

"First Amendment attorney and Free Speech Coalition Chairman Jeffrey Douglas said the ID request is unprecedented, and more importantly, a violation of privacy laws. According to Douglas, the request is illegal, and also could have a chilling effect on the free speech of webmasters that deal in legal teen content.

“This is a blatant and absolute violation of privacy laws,” Douglas told XBIZ. “There’s absolutely no legal liability for the registrar if underage models appear on a website. DirectNIC is an officious intermeddler.”

Upon receiving a complaint of child pornography, there are legal courses of action for directNIC to take, Douglas said. Since it has no legal right to obtain personally identifiable information from the website’s models, the company should have alerted the proper legal authorities, but instead it decided to take the law into its own hands. "


"“The bottom line is that if [directNIC] received a complaint about child porn, there are a numerous avenues for them to report it to the proper legal authorities,” Douglas said. “DirectNIC has no remote prayer to legally justify their request. They are licensed to provide a service — not to police content. I would think that upon hearing this, most adult companies would transfer their domains [away from directNIC] immediately.”

"Douglas continued, “Again, under federal law they have no right to these documents, so now they have no protection from civil liability. They are immune from policing content under the law, but now by doing so they have created liability. DirectNIC is lawlessly intruding into their business.”

And the DirectNic Response:

"According to directNIC General Counsel David W. Nance, upon receiving a warranted complaint of child porn, the company takes action by either immediately shutting down the domain or conducting an investigation.

“In most cases when there is a confirmed report of child porn, directNIC takes immediate action and shuts down the domain names because it is blatantly obvious that the customer is offering child porn,” Nance told XBIZ. “However, not every case is clear cut. The letter was intended to notify the customer of the potential issue that was reported to directNIC. This does not mean that the domains contain child porn; it only means that an investigation was commenced — i.e., we want to make sure that we do not facilitate the trading of child porn online.”


http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/F...view&coid=1014

[softball]

Interesting that the FSC is fundamentally agreeing with what I and most concerned people have been posting.

[Jace]

Originally Posted by sarettah

What, if i may ask, is the Mayflower?

apparently that is what serge has nicknamed his whinetalk internet forum

[softball]

Originally Posted by Jace

apparently that is what serge has nicknamed his whinetalk internet forum

Yeah, internet pilgrims. Where do I sign up? LOL

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Jace

apparently that is what serge has nicknamed his whinetalk internet forum

Oh, ok, I didn't know anything about that.

I just went over to look and when I click on the internet forum it shows zero messages, so I wouldn't guess that Mike is doing much talking in there.

[Jace]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Oh, ok, I didn't know anything about that.

I just went over to look and when I click on the internet forum it shows zero messages, so I wouldn't guess that Mike is doing much talking in there.

it is a hidden forum, you have to be invited

[Jace]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Oh, ok, I didn't know anything about that.

I just went over to look and when I click on the internet forum it shows zero messages, so I wouldn't guess that Mike is doing much talking in there.

Threads: 3,578, Posts: 29,443, Members: 226

now check out
http://winetalk.com/forum/index.php?

add up the totals on there

the difference is the Mayflower

[softball]

Originally Posted by Jace

Threads: 3,578, Posts: 29,443, Members: 226

now check out
http://winetalk.com/forum/index.php?

add up the totals on there

the difference is the Mayflower

Skull and Bones Masons Knights Templar

[sarettah]

Hmmm. Are we at the tin foil stage over what Serge is doing yet?

I would have thought that the message difference was messages that had been marked deleted (not actually deleted, but flagged for deletion in the database by the script) That is what is usually the case on the boards I have done database work for. It all depends on whether the database is set to delete immediately or keep them marked for recall if rollback is turned on.

[softball]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Hmmm. Are we at the tin foil stage over what Serge is doing yet?

I would have thought that the message difference was messages that had been marked deleted (not actually deleted, but flagged for deletion in the database by the script) That is what is usually the case on the boards I have done database work for. It all depends on whether the database is set to delete immediately or keep them marked for recall if rollback is turned on.

LOL.....what do you think?

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

LOL.....what do you think?

About?

[softball]

Sarettah, have you just whizzed over the FSC opinion? It seems to contradict your posting and interpretation of the law. I would be interested in your thoughts.
Fuck the mayflower thing. It is irrelevant to this thread. I am not interested. I just made a joke, ok?

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Sarettah, have you just whizzed over the FSC opinion? It seems to contradict your posting and interpretation of the law. I would be interested in your thoughts.
Fuck the mayflower thing. It is irrelevant to this thread. I am not interested. I just made a joke, ok?

Oh...lolol...ok

I had read that when it first came out. I think he's wrong. I understand all his credentials and all that but I have seen lots of lawyers be wrong before. He issued that rather quickly on the same day that all the shit went down. He based his entire opinion on the contents of one email and possibly whatever slick told him, if he spoke to slick at all.

[softball]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Oh...lolol...ok

I had read that when it first came out. I think he's wrong. I understand all his credentials and all that but I have seen lots of lawyers be wrong before. He issued that rather quickly on the same day that all the shit went down. He based his entire opinion on the contents of one email and possibly whatever slick told him, if he spoke to slick at all.

Well, we will watch what happens next week. I now agree with Jace and think all that needs to be said has been said until one side or another makes a move.....or does not. I would expect something on Monday from DN .

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Jace

it is a hidden forum, you have to be invited

So, you think you could wrangle me an invite? I mean, what are the requirements and what do you guys talk about ?

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Jace

it is a hidden forum, you have to be invited

Use a skeleton key.

[helix]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Use a skeleton key.

Or the secret handshake.

[sarettah]

So, how come everyone knows about this cept me? I meazn I wasn't gone that long.

[Hell Puppy]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Use a skeleton key.

I hear you can peek under the blinds...

[Jace]

Originally Posted by sarettah

So, how come everyone knows about this cept me? I meazn I wasn't gone that long.

haha, i have not been invited, and I don't expect to be

there are people that post in there that I also am friends with, they keep me updated

[LadyMischief]

I have an acct over there I just need to find my password, and that email address is no longer working lol.

[spazlabz]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Skull and Bones Masons Knights Templar

hey hey now... lets leave the Masonic Lodge out of this ok


spaz

[spazlabz]

For once I think my opinion on a subject is very important.

If you check out the sites for Royal Cash all but one is in the Teen Niche. We refer to them as 'True Teen niche' because the girls look like teens and not strippers in schoolgirl uniforms.

As a company we are also aware that for some reason people might yell and scream and talk all sorts of craziness about the content we have. It is all legal, 2257 compliant and we have been very public about the fact that we will indeed give out redacted IDs to US based webmasters who choose to host our content for promotional purposes.

My opinion is that Directnic fucked up... But once that fuck up became such a huge public issue, they felt they had to stand behind it.

as for someone looking at these images and feeling they should have been taken down immediately...

tough shit for you, sorry your sensitive to images, but your sensitivity does not make the image illegal.

I also write reviews on the side. I have seen sites that offended me very deeply, ones where girls are choked to tears, have their faces spit in, slapped and called names and a host of other foul expressions of sexuality (in my opinion foul) and I detested those sites. That doesn't mean that they should be removed. I have no idea if treating your models like that is illegal or not. I imagine there was a release and full disclosure to the models prior to the shoot I just know I found it very difficult to watch girls having penises shoved down their throats until they vomitted.

We have two issues here;
Legal Ones (directnic should have done what they were supposed to)
Moral Ones (directnic should have left this the fuck alone)

I dont wish any ill will towards Mike AI or any of his companies really but in this case the owner of those sites should sue the fuck out of him and I would keep my fingers crossed that they would win.


spaz

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by spazlabz

For once I think my opinion on a subject is very important.

If you check out the sites for Royal Cash all but one is in the Teen Niche. We refer to them as 'True Teen niche' because the girls look like teens and not strippers in schoolgirl uniforms.

As a company we are also aware that for some reason people might yell and scream and talk all sorts of craziness about the content we have. It is all legal, 2257 compliant and we have been very public about the fact that we will indeed give out redacted IDs to US based webmasters who choose to host our content for promotional purposes.

My opinion is that Directnic fucked up... But once that fuck up became such a huge public issue, they felt they had to stand behind it.

as for someone looking at these images and feeling they should have been taken down immediately...

tough shit for you, sorry your sensitive to images, but your sensitivity does not make the image illegal.

I also write reviews on the side. I have seen sites that offended me very deeply, ones where girls are choked to tears, have their faces spit in, slapped and called names and a host of other foul expressions of sexuality (in my opinion foul) and I detested those sites. That doesn't mean that they should be removed. I have no idea if treating your models like that is illegal or not. I imagine there was a release and full disclosure to the models prior to the shoot I just know I found it very difficult to watch girls having penises shoved down their throats until they vomitted.

We have two issues here;
Legal Ones (directnic should have done what they were supposed to)
Moral Ones (directnic should have left this the fuck alone)

I dont wish any ill will towards Mike AI or any of his companies really but in this case the owner of those sites should sue the fuck out of him and I would keep my fingers crossed that they would win.


spaz

Awesome post.

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by spazlabz

We have two issues here;
Legal Ones (directnic should have done what they were supposed to)
Moral Ones (directnic should have left this the fuck alone)

I dont wish any ill will towards Mike AI or any of his companies really but in this case the owner of those sites should sue the fuck out of him and I would keep my fingers crossed that they would win.


spaz

From all accounts, several of these girls looked WAY below 18 - and not just "looked". DirectNic did exactly what they had the rights to do per thier TOS. Yes, they could have turned him directly over to the police and Slick would be coming up with bail and more than likely be a registered sex offender once everything came out in the wash. But instead they locked the domains (so if he WAS a CP trafficker, he couldn't move them and disappear) and contacted him and gave him time to clear his name.

SLICK took this to the boards, not DirectNic. Slick then gave 100's of webmasters the opportunity to point out that many of his thumbs/trades looked VERY, VERY underage. Now all that's going to be there, in writing, forever. Had he dealt with DirectNic directly, no one would have known anything.

From what I've read, Google has removed at least one of his sites. Now, are you going to boycott Google too? Did they overreach their bounds?

I've seen time and time again where it's state specific if you "own" the domain or not. Since DirectNic is loaded with lawyers and probably has more contact with legal jurisdictions that any of us will EVER have contact with, I'm going make a wild ass assumption that they were within their legal right to take down the sites in question.

If not, Slick can sue them - simple as that.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by Peaches

From all accounts, several of these girls looked WAY below 18 - and not just "looked". DirectNic did exactly what they had the rights to do per thier TOS. Yes, they could have turned him directly over to the police and Slick would be coming up with bail and more than likely be a registered sex offender once everything came out in the wash. But instead they locked the domains (so if he WAS a CP trafficker, he couldn't move them and disappear) and contacted him and gave him time to clear his name.

SLICK took this to the boards, not DirectNic. Slick then gave 100's of webmasters the opportunity to point out that many of his thumbs/trades looked VERY, VERY underage. Now all that's going to be there, in writing, forever. Had he dealt with DirectNic directly, no one would have known anything.

From what I've read, Google has removed at least one of his sites. Now, are you going to boycott Google too? Did they overreach their bounds?

I've seen time and time again where it's state specific if you "own" the domain or not. Since DirectNic is loaded with lawyers and probably has more contact with legal jurisdictions that any of us will EVER have contact with, I'm going make a wild ass assumption that they were within their legal right to take down the sites in question.

If not, Slick can sue them - simple as that.

So you have difinitive proof that he had CP on his site? I don't think even DirectNIC has PROVEN that, if they ever do.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

So you have difinitive proof that he had CP on his site? I don't think even DirectNIC has PROVEN that, if they ever do.

Doesn't matter from my point of view. DN has every right to run their business as they see fit.

Same as you.

I am sure there are trades and gallery submissions that you reject just because. Not for a definitive reason necessarilly, or at least one you could not put into words.

I am sure you also sometimes approve some that later on you go kill because you feel like you were bs'd or whatever.

Not much difference in this whole thing except that you aren't taken to the boards in a completely one sided "let's beat up LM for doing this to me" tirade by the zoo.

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Doesn't matter from my point of view. DN has every right to run their business as they see fit.

EXACTLY.

MY point was that him even having a public SUSPICION of CP on his site/trades was brought in by him - not DirectNic.

And now Google's removed at least one of his sites, so yeah, I'm betting there was SOMETHING on there that shouldn't have been. Of course, had the dude never come screaming to GFY and dealt with DirectNic and an attorney from day one, I'd never know this information.

[softball]

"Doesn't matter from my point of view. DN has every right to run their business as they see fit."

What, just like Denny's? You remember when they got their asses kicked for refusing to serve black people.? Hell you write that into your tos and see how far it gets.

As for suing, that is just a typical litagous American response. It is expensive, sometimes wasteful and mostly the one with the most bucks wins. And in this case, I am sure we can figure out which side has the most horsepower, so that is a non starter. That is unless the FSC picks it up and then the fireworks could light up.

I never thought I would see the day.....

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

What, just like Denny's? You remember when they got their asses kicked for refusing to serve black people.? Hell you write that into your tos and see how far it gets.

And until someone challenged it in court, they got away with it. Right or wrong.

It takes a court challenge to establish this shit. If Slick has had his civil rights trampled as much as everyone says, his lawyer would have had this in court, getting an injunction back last wednesday or thusday when all the shit went down originally.

So, he either has a suck ass lawyer or he doesn't have a leg to stand on in his lawyer's eyes.

[softball]

Originally Posted by sarettah

And until someone challenged it in court, they got away with it. Right or wrong.

It takes a court challenge to establish this shit. If Slick has had his civil rights trampled as much as everyone says, his lawyer would have had this in court, getting an injunction back last wednesday or thusday when all the shit went down originally.

So, he either has a suck ass lawyer or he doesn't have a leg to stand on in his lawyer's eyes.

Why does everything have to be challenged in court? Like I said, money seems to trump what is right in many instances. OJ for instance. (just my opinion btw)
Maybe he can't afford a lawyer, but if he can and he has a suck ass lawyer, why should what is right always have to be determined by lawyers?
You want your freedoms defended by someone's suck ass lawyer who might lose a precedent setting case that affects your rights?
edit: Getting away with it is not the issue.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by sarettah

So, he either has a suck ass lawyer or he doesn't have a leg to stand on in his lawyer's eyes.

OR Slick realizes that the cost of persuing this through the courts would probably cost more than it's worth. Win or lose, he still has to pay his lawyer.

[Peaches]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Use a skeleton key.

Or steal passwords from your own users.

And Jace, you need better intel. Michael's not saying anything anywhere else he hasn't posted on GFY and JBM.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Peaches

Or steal passwords from your own users.

And Jace, you need better intel. Michael's not saying anything anywhere else he hasn't posted on GFY and JBM.

Would you mind cutting and pasting exactly what Mike is saying elsewhere, because he is not saying it here and no one is quoting him. Those boards are such a pain in the ass to sort through. I am sure you will have some quotable quotes.

[sarettah]

[quote=rhetorical;Getting away with it is not the issue.[/QUOTE]

Only in your utopia is that true. In the legal world, getting away with it. unfortunately, is almost always the issue.

Should GW be impeached for the way he got the US into Iraq. Should he, probably. Will he, not on your life.

Should Ollie North be walking around free? No way in hell. Is he? Yeppirs.

And OJ is another case of it.

In a country run by the rule of law, only the lawyers win outright. A lawyer is a fancy ass con man for the most part and the one that can woo the court or a jury the best wins.

But, in reference to getting into a court and get an injunction, it costs $75.00 (or somewhere in that area, it was $75 in 1986 when I was involved in one) to get in front of a federal judge and request an injunction against something like the TOS being enforced. If it has even a crooked leg to stand on, a 5 or 10 day injunction will be imposed almost for sure.

If I know this, I think any lawyer offering advice in this biz would know this.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Peaches

Or steal passwords from your own users.

.

When you figure out how to do that in a VB database you are a better person than I am.