Gamespot.com has this story up on their website now.
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/puzzle/theguygame/news_6115478.html
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/puzzle/theguygame/news_6115478.html
Topheavy Studios being Sued by a 17 year old girl
- Thread starter BigDirty
- Start date
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='jimbodan']Damn, now I may actually have to pick up this piece of crap if they are going to discontinue it[/quote]
And then you'll be in possession of child pornography.
Yeah, that's a shaq-fuing brilliant idea.
Hope you enjoy adding yourself to the registered sex offenders list if for some reason your home ever needs to be searched.[/quote]
It's not porn. It's topless women - there's a difference.
And then you'll be in possession of child pornography.
Yeah, that's a shaq-fuing brilliant idea.
Hope you enjoy adding yourself to the registered sex offenders list if for some reason your home ever needs to be searched.[/quote]
It's not porn. It's topless women - there's a difference.
greydemise
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
my dad picked up 2 copies 
theyr already going for a good price on ebay
theyr already going for a good price on ebay
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
[quote name='javeryh'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='jimbodan']Damn, now I may actually have to pick up this piece of crap if they are going to discontinue it[/quote]
And then you'll be in possession of child pornography.
Yeah, that's a shaq-fuing brilliant idea.
Hope you enjoy adding yourself to the registered sex offenders list if for some reason your home ever needs to be searched.[/quote]
It's not porn. It's topless women - there's a difference.[/quote]
Legal Definition of Child Pornography
In the 1982 case New York v. Ferber, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a New York state statute banning child pornography. This case set a legal precedent that determined, among other things, that child pornography was not required to meet the test for obscenity in order to be banned. Delivering the unanimous decision of the Court, Justice Byron White wrote:
As applied to respondent and others who distribute similar material, the statute in question does not violate the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
(a) The States are entitled to greater leeway in the regulation of pornographic depictions of children for the following reasons:
the legislative judgment that the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is harmful to the physiological, emotional, and mental health of the child, easily passes muster under the First Amendment;
the standard of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 , for determining what is legally obscene is not a satisfactory solution to the child pornography problem;
the advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic motive for and are thus an integral part of the production of such materials, an activity illegal throughout the Nation;
the value of permitting live performances and photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd exhibitions is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis; and
recognizing and classifying child pornography as a category of material outside the First Amendment's protection is not incompatible with this Court's decisions dealing with what speech is unprotected. When a definable class of material, such as that covered by [458 U.S. 747, 748] the New York statute, bears so heavily and pervasively on the welfare of children engaged in its production, the balance of competing interests is clearly struck, and it is permissible to consider these materials as without the First Amendment's protection. [emphasis added]
In effect, the Court’s ruling made the New York law in question a national standard. In addition to banning sexual activity with children, the law also prohibited lewd exhibition of children’s genitals. Later rulings have held that this lewd exhibition need not include nudity, but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses.
I'm sorry, but The Guy Game would seem to rise to the level of child pronography according to this ruling.
And then you'll be in possession of child pornography.
Yeah, that's a shaq-fuing brilliant idea.
Hope you enjoy adding yourself to the registered sex offenders list if for some reason your home ever needs to be searched.[/quote]
It's not porn. It's topless women - there's a difference.[/quote]
Legal Definition of Child Pornography
In the 1982 case New York v. Ferber, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a New York state statute banning child pornography. This case set a legal precedent that determined, among other things, that child pornography was not required to meet the test for obscenity in order to be banned. Delivering the unanimous decision of the Court, Justice Byron White wrote:
As applied to respondent and others who distribute similar material, the statute in question does not violate the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
(a) The States are entitled to greater leeway in the regulation of pornographic depictions of children for the following reasons:
the legislative judgment that the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is harmful to the physiological, emotional, and mental health of the child, easily passes muster under the First Amendment;
the standard of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 , for determining what is legally obscene is not a satisfactory solution to the child pornography problem;
the advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic motive for and are thus an integral part of the production of such materials, an activity illegal throughout the Nation;
the value of permitting live performances and photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd exhibitions is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis; and
recognizing and classifying child pornography as a category of material outside the First Amendment's protection is not incompatible with this Court's decisions dealing with what speech is unprotected. When a definable class of material, such as that covered by [458 U.S. 747, 748] the New York statute, bears so heavily and pervasively on the welfare of children engaged in its production, the balance of competing interests is clearly struck, and it is permissible to consider these materials as without the First Amendment's protection. [emphasis added]
In effect, the Court’s ruling made the New York law in question a national standard. In addition to banning sexual activity with children, the law also prohibited lewd exhibition of children’s genitals. Later rulings have held that this lewd exhibition need not include nudity, but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses.
I'm sorry, but The Guy Game would seem to rise to the level of child pronography according to this ruling.
notfromtexas
CAGiversary!
how the hell did a 17 year old girl get boozey?? Bettter find the bum who bought her the snapps and lock his ass away!
greydemise
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='notfromtexas']how the hell did a 17 year old girl get boozey?? Bettter find the bum who bought her the snapps and lock his ass away![/quote]
my thoughts exactly..someone up there mentioned that when the girl said " i was drunk and had no idea..." it should have all stopped right there
my thoughts exactly..someone up there mentioned that when the girl said " i was drunk and had no idea..." it should have all stopped right there
notfromtexas
CAGiversary!
Lol, then the camera man has to go in front of the judge and say, That 17 year old girl and I had an ORAL contract!
[quote name='notfromtexas']Lol, then the camera man has to go in front of the judge and say, That 17 year old girl and I had an ORAL contract![/quote]
I already pointed out the joke and kindly asked no one else to do so. Did I lose my right to do this when I said I watched something on the GGW website? Does anyone want me to post the site? I don't want to get in trouble, PM me if you want to see it.
I already pointed out the joke and kindly asked no one else to do so. Did I lose my right to do this when I said I watched something on the GGW website? Does anyone want me to post the site? I don't want to get in trouble, PM me if you want to see it.
Ok a few things that should be addressed in my opinion in this matter:
First, why arent the parties responsible for GETTING her drunk being brought to "justice"? The bar(s) she visited, and/or the person(s) who bought/sold her the alcohol.
Second, what about the neglence of her parents in letting an underage person out to party during Spring Break (read: drunken, Tittty-showing fest)
Third, if she signed a release form, then the gaming studo should be able to nab her for false representation.
Bet her daddy is just angry that he cant buy the game for fear of being labeled a perv!! He'd have been fine if it was someone else's daughter.
First, why arent the parties responsible for GETTING her drunk being brought to "justice"? The bar(s) she visited, and/or the person(s) who bought/sold her the alcohol.
Second, what about the neglence of her parents in letting an underage person out to party during Spring Break (read: drunken, Tittty-showing fest)
Third, if she signed a release form, then the gaming studo should be able to nab her for false representation.
Bet her daddy is just angry that he cant buy the game for fear of being labeled a perv!! He'd have been fine if it was someone else's daughter.
notfromtexas
CAGiversary!
Smalien chillax , do you need a hug? lol
, do you need a hug? lol
evilmojo12542
CAGiversary!
speaking of ggw I am thinkging about selling mine(have 10 or 12 or so). As far as the op I belive that as a miner she has the right to stop this, but also belive that she knew what she was doing at the time of the photos.I think if she gets anything monetary it should be put in a college fund or something not just given to her that is just my 2 cents worth
[quote name='Ugamer_X']
You're wrong it was the book of Bo and Luke of the Third verse of the Harzad hymes. Next time get it right.
Which book of the Bible tells you cast away all sin by taking your shirt off in a drunken stupor in front of hundreds of people? I think it was Luke, or was it John?...Yeah, it was John.[/quote]
You're wrong it was the book of Bo and Luke of the Third verse of the Harzad hymes. Next time get it right.
CrimsonGeist
CAGiversary!
Are you considered religious or ethical if you take your top of to a bunch of strangers, and let them tape you? Or did you want it to be private that you're a slut, and you thought the videos were just for the guys? She was ashamed after the game was released? She wasn't before? or did they mean their family is ashamed too? But the thing is, the company should have stated that you must be 18 or older. The girl knew her video would be distributed but not in the form of video games, she thought it would just be put into porn sites. She meant for it to be secret. BTW, since many adults bought the game, and probably wanked off to it, doesn't it make the perverts even bigger perverts? :lol:
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
[quote name='shawagg'][quote name='Ugamer_X']
You're wrong it was the book of Bo and Luke of the Third verse of the Harzad hymes. Next time get it right.[/quote]
For the homily, a reading from the book of Bo and Luke.
"Just two good old boys.
NEVER meaning no harm.
Beats all you never saw...
Been in trouble with the law...
since the day they was born.
Straight'nin' the curves,
Flat'nin' the hills.
Someday the moutain might get 'em...
but the law never will.
Makin' their way.
The only way they know how...
But that's just a little bit more...
than the law will allow.
Just two good ol' boys,
Wouldn't change if they could,
Fightin' the system like a true modern day Robin Hood.
Now, please flip over to the book of Coy and Vance for the second reading.
Which book of the Bible tells you cast away all sin by taking your shirt off in a drunken stupor in front of hundreds of people? I think it was Luke, or was it John?...Yeah, it was John.[/quote]
You're wrong it was the book of Bo and Luke of the Third verse of the Harzad hymes. Next time get it right.[/quote]
For the homily, a reading from the book of Bo and Luke.
"Just two good old boys.
NEVER meaning no harm.
Beats all you never saw...
Been in trouble with the law...
since the day they was born.
Straight'nin' the curves,
Flat'nin' the hills.
Someday the moutain might get 'em...
but the law never will.
Makin' their way.
The only way they know how...
But that's just a little bit more...
than the law will allow.
Just two good ol' boys,
Wouldn't change if they could,
Fightin' the system like a true modern day Robin Hood.
Now, please flip over to the book of Coy and Vance for the second reading.
Pancake Rabbit
CAGiversary!
stupid little slut should learn to keep her shirt on...
btw where can i get this game?
btw where can i get this game?
The Shiznit
CAGiversary!
[quote name='"Ugamer_X"']
I like how these girls suffer humiliation, embarrassment and shame after they have taken of their shirts and shown their fun bags. She wants to develop her career...isn't this a good way to start an internet porn career. Next time keep them under wraps dumbass.
I like how these girls suffer humiliation, embarrassment and shame after they have taken of their shirts and shown their fun bags. She wants to develop her career...isn't this a good way to start an internet porn career. Next time keep them under wraps dumbass.
[quote name='6669'][quote name='smalien1'][quote name='6669']:ziplip:[/quote]
Admit it, if there was a Guys Gone Wild thing you would want it.[/quote]
The only thing I can admit here is just how wrong you are.[/quote]
:lol: so only guys are sicko/pervs?
Admit it, if there was a Guys Gone Wild thing you would want it.[/quote]
The only thing I can admit here is just how wrong you are.[/quote]
:lol: so only guys are sicko/pervs?
[quote name='smalien1'][quote name='6669'][quote name='smalien1'][quote name='6669']:ziplip:[/quote]
Admit it, if there was a Guys Gone Wild thing you would want it.[/quote]
The only thing I can admit here is just how wrong you are.[/quote]
:lol: so only guys are sicko/pervs?[/quote]
Bingo!
Admit it, if there was a Guys Gone Wild thing you would want it.[/quote]
The only thing I can admit here is just how wrong you are.[/quote]
:lol: so only guys are sicko/pervs?[/quote]
Bingo!
While technically a 17 yr old girl is considered a child, at that point, she pretty much has the body of an adult woman... it's just her mind's 'supposedly' not mature enough to deal w/ her developing body but if you think about it that's a load of BS considering that there's a lot of adults who are just as (if not more) immature about the decisions they make w/ their bodies - having sex w/o a condom (and yes there ARE adults who do), self-mutaliation, drugs, etc. It boggles my mind when I see ppl who SHOULD know better but don't. I think instead of an age limit, there should be law against stupidity and immaturity. If you don't have the maturity or common sense to use your body in a sensible manner (non-rape pregnancy, STDs due to not using protection, DUIs, overdosing, etc.) then you waive your rights and privileges as a human being. Seriously, how stupid can some ppl be? I think there's enough blame to go around but I think the girl is mainly at fault. If her parents were responsible enough in raising her as a 'good christian girl' *snicker* then she would have the intelligence to say, "No thanks, I can't drink I'm underage." Before she got the liquor is when it's HER responsibility to take care of herself. I really can't place the blame on the parents since they can't watch her 24/7. Ok, I'm done
[quote name='Scorch']Dear god, it's hitting near 50 on ebay.
Buy! I'm getting this tomorrow.[/quote]
Futher proof that idiots can drive up the price of a game.
edit: where are you seeing anything close to 50? i found a single auction up to 41, and many buy it nows for around 36 bucks.
Buy! I'm getting this tomorrow.[/quote]
Futher proof that idiots can drive up the price of a game.
edit: where are you seeing anything close to 50? i found a single auction up to 41, and many buy it nows for around 36 bucks.
[quote name='mtxbass1'][quote name='Scorch']Dear god, it's hitting near 50 on ebay.
Buy! I'm getting this tomorrow.[/quote]
Futher proof that idiots can drive up the price of a game.
edit: where are you seeing anything close to 50? i found a single auction up to 41, and many buy it nows for around 36 bucks.[/quote]
Eh.. yeah, but if that was a cheap shot towards me, i'm not intending to resell.. I'm collecting XBox games and this one might become rare.. I rarely ever saw it anyways, now it'll be harder to find.. will go nice with my Marvel vs. Capcom 2 and Moto GP 2
Buy! I'm getting this tomorrow.[/quote]
Futher proof that idiots can drive up the price of a game.
edit: where are you seeing anything close to 50? i found a single auction up to 41, and many buy it nows for around 36 bucks.[/quote]
Eh.. yeah, but if that was a cheap shot towards me, i'm not intending to resell.. I'm collecting XBox games and this one might become rare.. I rarely ever saw it anyways, now it'll be harder to find.. will go nice with my Marvel vs. Capcom 2 and Moto GP 2
[quote name='mtxbass1'][quote name='Scorch']Dear god, it's hitting near 50 on ebay.
Buy! I'm getting this tomorrow.[/quote]
Futher proof that idiots can drive up the price of a game.
edit: where are you seeing anything close to 50? i found a single auction up to 41, and many buy it nows for around 36 bucks.[/quote]
The publisher of the game probably made this up so people would buy their stupid game since it wasn't selling. Now all collectors and pedophiles are gonna be willing to pay full price for this thing.
Buy! I'm getting this tomorrow.[/quote]
Futher proof that idiots can drive up the price of a game.
edit: where are you seeing anything close to 50? i found a single auction up to 41, and many buy it nows for around 36 bucks.[/quote]
The publisher of the game probably made this up so people would buy their stupid game since it wasn't selling. Now all collectors and pedophiles are gonna be willing to pay full price for this thing.
[quote name='punqsux'][quote name='6669']
The publisher of the game probably made this up so people would buy their stupid game since it wasn't selling. Now all collectors and pedophiles are gonna be willing to pay full price for this thing.[/quote]
now THAT'S marketing!![/quote]
Hey, its working already.
The publisher of the game probably made this up so people would buy their stupid game since it wasn't selling. Now all collectors and pedophiles are gonna be willing to pay full price for this thing.[/quote]
now THAT'S marketing!![/quote]Hey, its working already.
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='jimbodan']Damn, now I may actually have to pick up this piece of crap if they are going to discontinue it[/quote]
And then you'll be in possession of child pornography.
Yeah, that's a shaq-fuing brilliant idea.
Hope you enjoy adding yourself to the registered sex offenders list if for some reason your home ever needs to be searched.[/quote]
I don't remember asking for your opinion? When I have a question about legal issues I'll be sure to ask you first, now go crawl back in your hole until you feel like being an arogant, sarcastic, know-it-all again. Oh wait that's a 24.7 job for you.
I collect rare video games, if this game is going to be rare, I will collect it, I could care less what's in it.
And then you'll be in possession of child pornography.
Yeah, that's a shaq-fuing brilliant idea.
Hope you enjoy adding yourself to the registered sex offenders list if for some reason your home ever needs to be searched.[/quote]
I don't remember asking for your opinion? When I have a question about legal issues I'll be sure to ask you first, now go crawl back in your hole until you feel like being an arogant, sarcastic, know-it-all again. Oh wait that's a 24.7 job for you.
I collect rare video games, if this game is going to be rare, I will collect it, I could care less what's in it.
opportunity777
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
I better run to CC and pick this up!
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='shawagg'][quote name='Ugamer_X']
You're wrong it was the book of Bo and Luke of the Third verse of the Harzad hymes. Next time get it right.[/quote]
For the homily, a reading from the book of Bo and Luke.
"Just two good old boys.
NEVER meaning no harm.
Beats all you never saw...
Been in trouble with the law...
since the day they was born.
Straight'nin' the curves,
Flat'nin' the hills.
Someday the moutain might get 'em...
but the law never will.
Makin' their way.
The only way they know how...
But that's just a little bit more...
than the law will allow.
Just two good ol' boys,
Wouldn't change if they could,
Fightin' the system like a true modern day Robin Hood.
Now, please flip over to the book of Coy and Vance for the second reading.[/quote]
AMEN!!! I feel the power!
Which book of the Bible tells you cast away all sin by taking your shirt off in a drunken stupor in front of hundreds of people? I think it was Luke, or was it John?...Yeah, it was John.[/quote]
You're wrong it was the book of Bo and Luke of the Third verse of the Harzad hymes. Next time get it right.[/quote]
For the homily, a reading from the book of Bo and Luke.
"Just two good old boys.
NEVER meaning no harm.
Beats all you never saw...
Been in trouble with the law...
since the day they was born.
Straight'nin' the curves,
Flat'nin' the hills.
Someday the moutain might get 'em...
but the law never will.
Makin' their way.
The only way they know how...
But that's just a little bit more...
than the law will allow.
Just two good ol' boys,
Wouldn't change if they could,
Fightin' the system like a true modern day Robin Hood.
Now, please flip over to the book of Coy and Vance for the second reading.[/quote]
AMEN!!! I feel the power!
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='jimbodan']Damn, now I may actually have to pick up this piece of crap if they are going to discontinue it[/quote]
And then you'll be in possession of child pornography.
Yeah, that's a shaq-fuing brilliant idea.
Hope you enjoy adding yourself to the registered sex offenders list if for some reason your home ever needs to be searched.[/quote]
You're a
ing
, you know that?
And then you'll be in possession of child pornography.
Yeah, that's a shaq-fuing brilliant idea.
Hope you enjoy adding yourself to the registered sex offenders list if for some reason your home ever needs to be searched.[/quote]
You're a
ing
Medium_Pimpin
CAGiversary!
I just want to know who are the people ridiculing this girl for having a nice enough bod to be in the game?
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='javeryh'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='jimbodan']Damn, now I may actually have to pick up this piece of crap if they are going to discontinue it[/quote]
And then you'll be in possession of child pornography.
Yeah, that's a shaq-fuing brilliant idea.
Hope you enjoy adding yourself to the registered sex offenders list if for some reason your home ever needs to be searched.[/quote]
It's not porn. It's topless women - there's a difference.[/quote]
Legal Definition of Child Pornography
In the 1982 case New York v. Ferber, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a New York state statute banning child pornography. This case set a legal precedent that determined, among other things, that child pornography was not required to meet the test for obscenity in order to be banned. Delivering the unanimous decision of the Court, Justice Byron White wrote:
As applied to respondent and others who distribute similar material, the statute in question does not violate the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
(a) The States are entitled to greater leeway in the regulation of pornographic depictions of children for the following reasons:
the legislative judgment that the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is harmful to the physiological, emotional, and mental health of the child, easily passes muster under the First Amendment;
the standard of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 , for determining what is legally obscene is not a satisfactory solution to the child pornography problem;
the advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic motive for and are thus an integral part of the production of such materials, an activity illegal throughout the Nation;
the value of permitting live performances and photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd exhibitions is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis; and
recognizing and classifying child pornography as a category of material outside the First Amendment's protection is not incompatible with this Court's decisions dealing with what speech is unprotected. When a definable class of material, such as that covered by [458 U.S. 747, 748] the New York statute, bears so heavily and pervasively on the welfare of children engaged in its production, the balance of competing interests is clearly struck, and it is permissible to consider these materials as without the First Amendment's protection. [emphasis added]
In effect, the Court’s ruling made the New York law in question a national standard. In addition to banning sexual activity with children, the law also prohibited lewd exhibition of children’s genitals. Later rulings have held that this lewd exhibition need not include nudity, but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses.
I'm sorry, but The Guy Game would seem to rise to the level of child pronography according to this ruling.[/quote]
Um, no. Boobs are quite different from genitals and bearing them certainly does not fit the definition of "lewd" (obscene or indecent - which is quite broad anyway) - it's not child porn.
And then you'll be in possession of child pornography.
Yeah, that's a shaq-fuing brilliant idea.
Hope you enjoy adding yourself to the registered sex offenders list if for some reason your home ever needs to be searched.[/quote]
It's not porn. It's topless women - there's a difference.[/quote]
Legal Definition of Child Pornography
In the 1982 case New York v. Ferber, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a New York state statute banning child pornography. This case set a legal precedent that determined, among other things, that child pornography was not required to meet the test for obscenity in order to be banned. Delivering the unanimous decision of the Court, Justice Byron White wrote:
As applied to respondent and others who distribute similar material, the statute in question does not violate the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
(a) The States are entitled to greater leeway in the regulation of pornographic depictions of children for the following reasons:
the legislative judgment that the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is harmful to the physiological, emotional, and mental health of the child, easily passes muster under the First Amendment;
the standard of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 , for determining what is legally obscene is not a satisfactory solution to the child pornography problem;
the advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic motive for and are thus an integral part of the production of such materials, an activity illegal throughout the Nation;
the value of permitting live performances and photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd exhibitions is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis; and
recognizing and classifying child pornography as a category of material outside the First Amendment's protection is not incompatible with this Court's decisions dealing with what speech is unprotected. When a definable class of material, such as that covered by [458 U.S. 747, 748] the New York statute, bears so heavily and pervasively on the welfare of children engaged in its production, the balance of competing interests is clearly struck, and it is permissible to consider these materials as without the First Amendment's protection. [emphasis added]
In effect, the Court’s ruling made the New York law in question a national standard. In addition to banning sexual activity with children, the law also prohibited lewd exhibition of children’s genitals. Later rulings have held that this lewd exhibition need not include nudity, but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses.
I'm sorry, but The Guy Game would seem to rise to the level of child pronography according to this ruling.[/quote]
Um, no. Boobs are quite different from genitals and bearing them certainly does not fit the definition of "lewd" (obscene or indecent - which is quite broad anyway) - it's not child porn.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
Um, no. Boobs are quite different from genitals and bearing them certainly does not fit the definition of "lewd" (obscene or indecent - which is quite broad anyway) - it's not child porn.
In effect, the Court’s ruling made the New York law in question a national standard. In addition to banning sexual activity with children, the law also prohibited lewd exhibition of children’s genitals. Later rulings have held that this lewd exhibition need not include nudity, but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses
A child in a bikini making overtly sexual actions (stripping, etc) would fall under the statement "but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses".
It is child porn.
In effect, the Court’s ruling made the New York law in question a national standard. In addition to banning sexual activity with children, the law also prohibited lewd exhibition of children’s genitals. Later rulings have held that this lewd exhibition need not include nudity, but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses
A child in a bikini making overtly sexual actions (stripping, etc) would fall under the statement "but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses".
It is child porn.
[quote name='JSweeney']Um, no. Boobs are quite different from genitals and bearing them certainly does not fit the definition of "lewd" (obscene or indecent - which is quite broad anyway) - it's not child porn.
In effect, the Court’s ruling made the New York law in question a national standard. In addition to banning sexual activity with children, the law also prohibited lewd exhibition of children’s genitals. Later rulings have held that this lewd exhibition need not include nudity, but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses
A child in a bikini making overtly sexual actions (stripping, etc) would fall under the statement "but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses".
It is child porn.[/quote]
I'm gonna have to agree with Sweeney. Someone on here already mentioned (I thinK) that Girls Gone Wild got sued for it before.
Besides, if its not child porn, then I'm posting pics of my breasts here.
j/k :lol:
That was so a joke meant to lighten the mood, and should not be taken seriously by anyone with the slightest bit of intelligance.
In effect, the Court’s ruling made the New York law in question a national standard. In addition to banning sexual activity with children, the law also prohibited lewd exhibition of children’s genitals. Later rulings have held that this lewd exhibition need not include nudity, but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses
A child in a bikini making overtly sexual actions (stripping, etc) would fall under the statement "but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses".
It is child porn.[/quote]
I'm gonna have to agree with Sweeney. Someone on here already mentioned (I thinK) that Girls Gone Wild got sued for it before.
Besides, if its not child porn, then I'm posting pics of my breasts here.
j/k :lol:
That was so a joke meant to lighten the mood, and should not be taken seriously by anyone with the slightest bit of intelligance.
onetrackmind
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 81 (100%)
[quote name='6669'][quote name='JSweeney']Um, no. Boobs are quite different from genitals and bearing them certainly does not fit the definition of "lewd" (obscene or indecent - which is quite broad anyway) - it's not child porn.
In effect, the Court’s ruling made the New York law in question a national standard. In addition to banning sexual activity with children, the law also prohibited lewd exhibition of children’s genitals. Later rulings have held that this lewd exhibition need not include nudity, but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses
A child in a bikini making overtly sexual actions (stripping, etc) would fall under the statement "but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses".
It is child porn.[/quote]
I'm gonna have to agree with Sweeney. Someone on here already mentioned (I thinK) that Girls Gone Wild got sued for it before.
Besides, if its not child porn, then I'm posting pics of my breasts here.
j/k :lol:
That was so a joke meant to lighten the mood, and should not be taken seriously by anyone with the slightest bit of intelligance.[/quote]
haha that actually made me laugh
In effect, the Court’s ruling made the New York law in question a national standard. In addition to banning sexual activity with children, the law also prohibited lewd exhibition of children’s genitals. Later rulings have held that this lewd exhibition need not include nudity, but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses
A child in a bikini making overtly sexual actions (stripping, etc) would fall under the statement "but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses".
It is child porn.[/quote]
I'm gonna have to agree with Sweeney. Someone on here already mentioned (I thinK) that Girls Gone Wild got sued for it before.
Besides, if its not child porn, then I'm posting pics of my breasts here.
j/k :lol:
That was so a joke meant to lighten the mood, and should not be taken seriously by anyone with the slightest bit of intelligance.[/quote]
haha that actually made me laugh
It's child porn by the books, but honestly, do you think a cop would care if he saw a game that had a 17 year old chick topless? I seriously, seriously doubt it.
Oh, and on another note, this damn game is sold out for XBox everywhere, but the PS2 version seems to be everywhere.
Oh, and on another note, this damn game is sold out for XBox everywhere, but the PS2 version seems to be everywhere.
[quote name='JSweeney']Um, no. Boobs are quite different from genitals and bearing them certainly does not fit the definition of "lewd" (obscene or indecent - which is quite broad anyway) - it's not child porn.
In effect, the Court’s ruling made the New York law in question a national standard. In addition to banning sexual activity with children, the law also prohibited lewd exhibition of children’s genitals. Later rulings have held that this lewd exhibition need not include nudity, but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses
A child in a bikini making overtly sexual actions (stripping, etc) would fall under the statement "but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses".
It is child porn.[/quote]
*sigh* No, it's not. Maybe you should read the statement a little more carefully. If you read the first part of the statement which puts it in the proper context, it clearly says "Later rulings have held that this lewd exhibition need not, etc...." The part in bold clearly refers to the previous sentence which classifies what falls under lewd exhibition - "the exhibition of children’s genitals" Boobs are not genitals.
It is most definitely not child porn.
EDIT: Porn and nudity are two totally different concepts yet I'm amazed how often people just group one in with the other. As I said somewhere else in this thread, the issue isn't about her nudity or whether this is porn. The issue is the use of her person for profit. Everyone has the right to control their own image in a commercial sense. The validity of the release is really the only thing that will come into question. If the release was valid she loses, if not she will probably win.
In effect, the Court’s ruling made the New York law in question a national standard. In addition to banning sexual activity with children, the law also prohibited lewd exhibition of children’s genitals. Later rulings have held that this lewd exhibition need not include nudity, but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses
A child in a bikini making overtly sexual actions (stripping, etc) would fall under the statement "but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses".
It is child porn.[/quote]
*sigh* No, it's not. Maybe you should read the statement a little more carefully. If you read the first part of the statement which puts it in the proper context, it clearly says "Later rulings have held that this lewd exhibition need not, etc...." The part in bold clearly refers to the previous sentence which classifies what falls under lewd exhibition - "the exhibition of children’s genitals" Boobs are not genitals.
It is most definitely not child porn.
EDIT: Porn and nudity are two totally different concepts yet I'm amazed how often people just group one in with the other. As I said somewhere else in this thread, the issue isn't about her nudity or whether this is porn. The issue is the use of her person for profit. Everyone has the right to control their own image in a commercial sense. The validity of the release is really the only thing that will come into question. If the release was valid she loses, if not she will probably win.
[quote name='onetrackmind'][quote name='6669'][quote name='JSweeney']Um, no. Boobs are quite different from genitals and bearing them certainly does not fit the definition of "lewd" (obscene or indecent - which is quite broad anyway) - it's not child porn.
In effect, the Court’s ruling made the New York law in question a national standard. In addition to banning sexual activity with children, the law also prohibited lewd exhibition of children’s genitals. Later rulings have held that this lewd exhibition need not include nudity, but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses
A child in a bikini making overtly sexual actions (stripping, etc) would fall under the statement "but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses".
It is child porn.[/quote]
I'm gonna have to agree with Sweeney. Someone on here already mentioned (I thinK) that Girls Gone Wild got sued for it before.
Besides, if its not child porn, then I'm posting pics of my breasts here.
j/k :lol:
That was so a joke meant to lighten the mood, and should not be taken seriously by anyone with the slightest bit of intelligance.[/quote]
haha that actually made me laugh[/quote]
See, the guy in your avatar would have taken it seriously.
In effect, the Court’s ruling made the New York law in question a national standard. In addition to banning sexual activity with children, the law also prohibited lewd exhibition of children’s genitals. Later rulings have held that this lewd exhibition need not include nudity, but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses
A child in a bikini making overtly sexual actions (stripping, etc) would fall under the statement "but could also apply to clothed children placed in lascivious poses".
It is child porn.[/quote]
I'm gonna have to agree with Sweeney. Someone on here already mentioned (I thinK) that Girls Gone Wild got sued for it before.
Besides, if its not child porn, then I'm posting pics of my breasts here.
j/k :lol:
That was so a joke meant to lighten the mood, and should not be taken seriously by anyone with the slightest bit of intelligance.[/quote]
haha that actually made me laugh[/quote]
See, the guy in your avatar would have taken it seriously.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
*sigh* No, it's not. Maybe you should read the statement a little more carefully. If you read the first part of the statement which puts it in the proper context, it clearly says "Later rulings have held that this lewd exhibition need not, etc...." The part in bold clearly refers to the previous sentence which classifies what falls under lewd exhibition - "the exhibition of children’s genitals" Boobs are not genitals.
It is most definitely not child porn.
United States v Knox:
In Knox, a man who had previously been convicted of receiving child pornography through the mail ordered video tapes (by mail) of girls between the ages of ten and seventeen who, in the Court's words, "were dancing or gyrating in a fashion not natural for their age." The girls wore bikini bathing suits, leotards, or underwear - none of the girls in the videos was nude. The videos were set to music, and it appeared that someone off-camera was directing the girls. The photographer videotaped the girls dancing, and zoomed in on each girl's pubic area for an extended period of time. Knox was prosecuted under United States Child Pornography laws.
Legal counsel for Knox argued that "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" meant that the girls had to be nude - wearing clothing meant that that genitals and pubic area were clearly not exhibited. The Court disagreed and held that there was no nudity requirement in the statute: "the statutory term "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area," as used in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(E), does not contain any requirement that the child subject's genitals or pubic area be fully or partially exposed or discernible through his or her opaque clothing."
Yes, it is child porn, per United Sates v Knox.
[quote name='JSweeney']
United States v Knox:
In Knox, a man who had previously been convicted of receiving child pornography through the mail ordered video tapes (by mail) of girls between the ages of ten and seventeen who, in the Court's words, "were dancing or gyrating in a fashion not natural for their age." The girls wore bikini bathing suits, leotards, or underwear - none of the girls in the videos was nude. The videos were set to music, and it appeared that someone off-camera was directing the girls. The photographer videotaped the girls dancing, and zoomed in on each girl's pubic area for an extended period of time. Knox was prosecuted under United States Child Pornography laws.
Legal counsel for Knox argued that "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" meant that the girls had to be nude - wearing clothing meant that that genitals and pubic area were clearly not exhibited. The Court disagreed and held that there was no nudity requirement in the statute: "the statutory term "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area," as used in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(E), does not contain any requirement that the child subject's genitals or pubic area be fully or partially exposed or discernible through his or her opaque clothing."
Yes, it is child porn, per United Sates v Knox.[/quote]
I'm starting to wonder if you know what theing difference is between breasts and genitals.
United States v Knox:
In Knox, a man who had previously been convicted of receiving child pornography through the mail ordered video tapes (by mail) of girls between the ages of ten and seventeen who, in the Court's words, "were dancing or gyrating in a fashion not natural for their age." The girls wore bikini bathing suits, leotards, or underwear - none of the girls in the videos was nude. The videos were set to music, and it appeared that someone off-camera was directing the girls. The photographer videotaped the girls dancing, and zoomed in on each girl's pubic area for an extended period of time. Knox was prosecuted under United States Child Pornography laws.
Legal counsel for Knox argued that "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" meant that the girls had to be nude - wearing clothing meant that that genitals and pubic area were clearly not exhibited. The Court disagreed and held that there was no nudity requirement in the statute: "the statutory term "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area," as used in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(E), does not contain any requirement that the child subject's genitals or pubic area be fully or partially exposed or discernible through his or her opaque clothing."
Yes, it is child porn, per United Sates v Knox.[/quote]
I'm starting to wonder if you know what the
ing difference is between breasts and genitals.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
Porn and nudity are two totally different concepts yet I'm amazed how often people just group one in with the other. As I said somewhere else in this thread, the issue isn't about her nudity or whether this is porn.
Considering how many people are saying they want to buy this now as a collectors item, whether or not it would be considered child porn is of high importance.
The issue is the use of her person for profit. Everyone has the right to control their own image in a commercial sense. The validity of the release is really the only thing that will come into question. If the release was valid she loses, if not she will probably win.
For the issues of her civil suit, yes.
I find the possibility of some unsuspecting board members being in possession of child porn unwittingly to be of a much higher concern than the proceedings of a civil trial trying to recoup damages on something that a girl did while drunk and is now regretting.
Considering how many people are saying they want to buy this now as a collectors item, whether or not it would be considered child porn is of high importance.
The issue is the use of her person for profit. Everyone has the right to control their own image in a commercial sense. The validity of the release is really the only thing that will come into question. If the release was valid she loses, if not she will probably win.
For the issues of her civil suit, yes.
I find the possibility of some unsuspecting board members being in possession of child porn unwittingly to be of a much higher concern than the proceedings of a civil trial trying to recoup damages on something that a girl did while drunk and is now regretting.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Scorch'][quote name='JSweeney']
United States v Knox:
In Knox, a man who had previously been convicted of receiving child pornography through the mail ordered video tapes (by mail) of girls between the ages of ten and seventeen who, in the Court's words, "were dancing or gyrating in a fashion not natural for their age." The girls wore bikini bathing suits, leotards, or underwear - none of the girls in the videos was nude. The videos were set to music, and it appeared that someone off-camera was directing the girls. The photographer videotaped the girls dancing, and zoomed in on each girl's pubic area for an extended period of time. Knox was prosecuted under United States Child Pornography laws.
Legal counsel for Knox argued that "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" meant that the girls had to be nude - wearing clothing meant that that genitals and pubic area were clearly not exhibited. The Court disagreed and held that there was no nudity requirement in the statute: "the statutory term "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area," as used in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(E), does not contain any requirement that the child subject's genitals or pubic area be fully or partially exposed or discernible through his or her opaque clothing."
Yes, it is child porn, per United Sates v Knox.[/quote]
I'm starting to wonder if you know what the shaq-fuing difference is between breasts and genitals.[/quote]
To prove it to be child porn, all one lawyer would have to do is show just ONE scene where they zoom in and show the girl's genital region (even while covered in the bikini) in close focus.
"extended period" is a very subjective term... 20-30 seconds could even be considered that. Are you willing to bet that they don't pan in on the girl's lower body for even 30 seconds?
I'm not. Which is why I will never own this game.
United States v Knox:
In Knox, a man who had previously been convicted of receiving child pornography through the mail ordered video tapes (by mail) of girls between the ages of ten and seventeen who, in the Court's words, "were dancing or gyrating in a fashion not natural for their age." The girls wore bikini bathing suits, leotards, or underwear - none of the girls in the videos was nude. The videos were set to music, and it appeared that someone off-camera was directing the girls. The photographer videotaped the girls dancing, and zoomed in on each girl's pubic area for an extended period of time. Knox was prosecuted under United States Child Pornography laws.
Legal counsel for Knox argued that "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" meant that the girls had to be nude - wearing clothing meant that that genitals and pubic area were clearly not exhibited. The Court disagreed and held that there was no nudity requirement in the statute: "the statutory term "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area," as used in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(E), does not contain any requirement that the child subject's genitals or pubic area be fully or partially exposed or discernible through his or her opaque clothing."
Yes, it is child porn, per United Sates v Knox.[/quote]
I'm starting to wonder if you know what the shaq-fuing difference is between breasts and genitals.[/quote]
To prove it to be child porn, all one lawyer would have to do is show just ONE scene where they zoom in and show the girl's genital region (even while covered in the bikini) in close focus.
"extended period" is a very subjective term... 20-30 seconds could even be considered that. Are you willing to bet that they don't pan in on the girl's lower body for even 30 seconds?
I'm not. Which is why I will never own this game.
bread's done