sbsquarepants wrote: » **** him, good enough for him. I don't see why, but there should definitely be a serious clampdown. I can't see why it would be so difficult to pass a law that states, if child porn turns up on a server owned by "X" then X is guilty of distributing child porn unless they can prove they took every reasonable and available step to block it in the first instance, and remove it in the second instance, should they have honestly failed to block it. We asked the 12 year old what age she was and she said 18 is just not going to cut it. If you are happily profiting from selling this shít you are a fúcking scumbag, and should be treated as such, end of story! Same thing if you are buying it.
Paul Weller wrote: » Any underage person supplying onlyfans or porn hub with images/video should be prosecuted also
sbsquarepants wrote: » **** him, good enough for him. I don't see why, but there should definitely be a serious clampdown. I can't see why it would be so difficult to pass a law that states, if child porn turns up on a server owned by "X" then X is guilty of distributing child porn unless they can prove they took every reasonable and available step to block it in the first instance, and remove it in the second instance, should they have honestly failed to block it. We asked the 12 year old what age she was and she said 18 is just not going to cut it. If you are happily profiting from selling this shít you are a fúcking scumbag, and should be treated as such, end of story! Same thing if you are buying it, viewing it, trading it or whatever.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Any thoughts on how this is to be implemented? Are the hosting company to examine every image uploaded and decide the age of the person in any pornographic images?
montyrebel wrote: » i hope all those women reporting to the gardai have their taxes up to date from this paid work
sbsquarepants wrote: » I can't see why it would be so difficult to pass a law that states, if child porn turns up on a server owned by "X" then X is guilty of distributing child porn unless they can prove they took every reasonable and available step to block it in the first instance, and remove it in the second instance, should they have honestly failed to block it.
Deleted User wrote: » Because most people don't "buy" a server, they use a cloud hosting service. These services could have a million or more clients, or billions in the case of Amazon. Also the server could be in Outer Mongolia paid for with bitcoin or something. Very hard to trace and enforce. Not saying we shouldn't try, absolutely we should, but it isn't as easy as you seem to think.
Deleted User wrote: » Can someone explain to me how there was a centralised repository of private pics and videos or whatever that thousands of women only shared with their boyfriends that suddenly got released? Something doesn't add up. I'm an old guy in IT, I understand the IT side but am clueless about this OnlyFans stuff.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Except that's not what happened. Private, intimate photos of her when she was under age, or a child, were leaked without her permission. Her OF site came later.But thanks for making excuses for the lads jerking off to child pornography.
hynesie08 wrote: » I'm hesitant to say it's an attempt to get revenge porn laws pushed through. But I wouldn't be surprised if this all mysteriously dissappears as soon as they do.......
BorneTobyWilde wrote: » That's some knowledge of the events mate. As for bit in bold, what de fck are you on about. Any kid who gets on OF's and produces and distributes CP on a commercial scale and sells it's to those purchasing it puts other kids in danger. They're breaking the law, and should also be getting a visit from the guards.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » This is the forum you want for that.https://touch.boards.ie/forum/576
sbsquarepants wrote: » If need be, yes. Or some other way, it's really up to them to find some way to comply with the law, not for the law to find a way to comply with their business. Why should some company be allowed to peddle underage porn just because it would take a bit of effort to not peddle it? You've to prove your age for all sorts of things. 13 year olds can't just rock up to O'Briens and buy a bottle of Tequilla, and if it turns out that O'Briens just can't be arsed checking on peoples ages, there will be serious repercussions for them.
hynesie08 wrote: » Cool story bro, of course there's no history of these large file shares turning out to be false are there.....https://www.her.ie/life/ucd-student-paper-refuse-to-publish-correction-following-ucd200-scandal-279888 Do you have evidence these servers exist????
AndrewJRenko wrote: » The knowledge of events is from her tweets. Interesting though that you didn't question any of the knowledge of events of the lads piling on to blame the under age girls. This leak doesn't relate to OF material, as explained above.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Ha, ha, ha, you're hilarious. No one incriminated themselves so you're convinced it never happened. Would you like to buy this bridge?
BorneTobyWilde wrote: » I know ZERO of the leaks, and never subbed to OF's and never will. Simple fact is, and it's a fact, OF's is full of 1000's upon 1000's of underage people. Not just in Ireland, but everywhere, places in South America like Columbia , Venezuela, where 1 dollar is a fortune have huge amounts people on there, a lot of them underage. It's wrong of you to say that not one leaked photos is from OF's from someone who maybe wasn't of age to be on there. We don't know that, but it's likely.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I didn't say 'not one of '. I was referring to the particular case noted in the tweet above. So have you any thoughts on the private Discord group of lads sharing nudes, some of which are private photos of children?
Quantum Erasure wrote: » Just flicking through the stations and see Mattie McGrath talking about this, or something like this.