Quote:
Originally Posted by quantum-x
6 minutes, and you cant even read
1. Firstly, my argument wasn't about obscenity but it's true, it was about Visa & Mastercard caring. And they do. This is a bank risk, not government risk. No bank will actively and knowingly process it. They may look the other way, until you get attention like this thread or until you plaster it on every tube site out in a setting where you are trying to make it like girls are getting raped being passed out on liquor or having things done to them totally against their will or their ability to say no - like being drunk and passed out.
2. Rape porn producer locked up... Rob Black of Extreme Associates last week, some of the films referenced were of depictions around soldiers/taliban raping girls (holding knife up against their throat), etc.
I'd be more concerned about #1, than #2. I'm not saying there's a big chance people will get in trouble from a criminal standpoint although it does exist, but the very second someone from Mastercard or Visa see it.... they will not be happy. And how do you explain yourself to them when it's so explicit you're trying to hit that angle? A lot of people think its all porn and theres no difference in the eyes of the credit card companies, I assure you there is - they don't want to sell anything that *LOOKS* illegal or is catering to a blatant crime. No one from there is going to look at it and go "oh thats cool" but they will look at a gangbang video of a girl getting buttfucked by 5 black guys and not have a problem. There is a difference, and the people there to review the content know about it - there's a clear line between consensual and non-consensual.
|
How exactly will visa and mastercard know, and why would they care if the content is legal? When you order rape pornography, does the charge come through with "JOE'S RAPE PORN EMPORIUM"? Nope. It'll come through as something like "PAYCOM", or the name of the credit card processor.
Additionally, the extreme associates case was previously dropped:
Quote:
|
On January 20, 2005, District Court Judge Gary L. Lancaster dropped the charges, agreeing with the defense that the federal anti-obscenity statutes were unconstitutional, as they violated a person's fundamental right to possess and view whatever they want in the privacy of their own home.[
|
However, the doj appealed the ruling, and in the retrial the owners simply folded to avoid having to pay another set of mounting legal fees.