Just to get how much of a joke this is, the original author was called "me-so-horny". and it was originally posted to Flickr as "Sliding it in my hot wet hole".
QUOTE
It's a photo of explicit sexual intercourse. There's no content advice. 189.49.120.20 02:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Young Julian Colton defends the Wikipedian standards, Roux puts the boot in. Police Cadet Tiptoety incarcerates. How old are Julian and Tiptoety now?It is interesting to see how the adolescent "I-am-a-Policeman-so-let's-lock-em-all-up" tendencies of young Tiptoety are put into the service of defending hard core porn on the Wikipedia ... and the wonders of " the irrefutable CheckUser evidence" meaning ... two edits both came from Germany so they MUST be the same person!
The funny thing is, Roux is allowed to say, "oh for fuck's sake, just fuck off. your CONTINUED attempts to smear people--I see you've moved on--clearly have approval from admins because you should be fucking blocked" but the allegedly user (we dont know) gets banned for saying, "F*CK YOU, ROUX!" with user:Bidgee coming along to wipe his bottom for him.
The image is full penetration, hard core porn ... wikipedia user: UAltmann puts forwards a legal argument. Many of the usual characters involved.
QUOTE
It has not been seen so far by anybody, that 18 U.S.C. § 2257 states some requirements concerning explicit sexual conduct material, such as the duty to exactly verify and testify the legal age of the persons pictured. As long as this is not the case, the picture must be removed. This is not a moral discussion here, this is about law. It is not enough to just say "the persons pictured are obviously adults", this fact must be verified, recorded and testified indeed. --UAltmann (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep (see also discussions above). There's really no reason to believe the depicted persons are minors. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Nobody said pornography. Just enter '18 U.S.C. § 2257' at google.com . The law provides that records of the persons pictured must be kept and it must be testified that the persons pictured are of legal age for being pictured. It is not enough to state that the persons pictured are obviously adults, it must be testified with the picture in verifiable form.--UAltmann (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
If I'm not misstaken, the law doesn't say that we must keep the record. The producer needs to. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
You are indeed mistaken, please read (f) (4) of 18 U.S.C. § 2257:
"It shall be unlawful...knowingly to fail to comply with the provisions of subsection (e) or any regulation promulgated pursuant to that subsection ... (4) for any person knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer, or offer for sale or transfer, any book, magazine, periodical, film, video, or other matter... which does not have affixed thereto, in a manner prescribed as set forth in subsection (e)(1), a statement describing where the records required by this section may be located, but such person shall have no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of the statement or the records required to be kept..." Therefore: DELETE. --UAltmann (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep (see also discussions above). There's really no reason to believe the depicted persons are minors. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Nobody said pornography. Just enter '18 U.S.C. § 2257' at google.com . The law provides that records of the persons pictured must be kept and it must be testified that the persons pictured are of legal age for being pictured. It is not enough to state that the persons pictured are obviously adults, it must be testified with the picture in verifiable form.--UAltmann (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
If I'm not misstaken, the law doesn't say that we must keep the record. The producer needs to. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
You are indeed mistaken, please read (f) (4) of 18 U.S.C. § 2257:
"It shall be unlawful...knowingly to fail to comply with the provisions of subsection (e) or any regulation promulgated pursuant to that subsection ... (4) for any person knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer, or offer for sale or transfer, any book, magazine, periodical, film, video, or other matter... which does not have affixed thereto, in a manner prescribed as set forth in subsection (e)(1), a statement describing where the records required by this section may be located, but such person shall have no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of the statement or the records required to be kept..." Therefore: DELETE. --UAltmann (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
QUOTE
Please note, once again, that 18 U.S.C. § 2257 applies only to commercial entities. WMF, per the WMF legal counsel (Mike Godwin), is not a commercial entity. Thus that law does not apply. Please stop pretending it does. Roux (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Those who are able to read have clear advantages...
"By its clear, unambiguous terms, the statute applies to any “producer†of photographs depicting actual sexually explicit conduct, 18 U.S.C. § 2257(a), and “produces†is defined to include anyone who creates the visual representation, for instance a photographer or videographer, as well as anyone who subsequently publishes the image, id. § 2257(h)(2)... The statute by its plain terms makes no exception for photographs taken without a commercial purpose, for photographs intended to never be transferred, or for photographs taken with any other motivation.US-Court of Appeals for the 6th circuit, Please look here on page 5 and please stop claiming, that I am pretending! --UAltmann (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Insult me like that again, sockpuppeteer, and you will be blocked. Mike Godwin is WMF's legal counsel. His legal opinion trumps yours. Roux (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I did not insult you, therefore please stop threatening me. You did not make any new contribution to the issue, either. Mike Godwin's opinion may trump mine, but not the court's. --UAltmann (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
"Those who are able to read..." is a clear insult. You know this, of course. That you pretend otherwise is immaterial. Godwin has stated that he has not been contacted by FBI or DOJ; given his position with WMF and his general celebrity (ever heard of Godwin's Law? Yeah, that's him) he said he would undoubtedly be contacted by them should WMF be in breach. Go take it up with hi, as you clearly don't much know what you're talking about. Bye now. Roux (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course I know, who Godwin is... "Those who are able to read..." is a general statement, if you feel touched by this, it's your problem, not mine. I have only quoted the court's decision and - I want this to be clear - I have not threatended with contacting the FBI, since I believe that WMF is able to resolve the issue itself. I sure do know what I am talking about, since many professional lawyers share my point of view. --UAltmann (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
You don't get to hide behind 'it's a general statement' when you're making insults, is that clear? Good. Whether other lawyers share your point of view is immaterial, as they do not represent WMF. Roux (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Who are you to talk to me like that? As I said, if you take that personally, it is not my problem. My point is, that the legal counsel of WMF is not the last instance to decide on this. So far, you have not made a contribution to the legal issue itself and to the court's statements that I cited, and I don't see that you are willing to do so, therefore, consider this debate closed. EOD. --UAltmann (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I am the person you deliberately insulted, that's who. Unless and until court action is initiated against WMF, yes, the legal counsel is the person whose job it is--you know this--to advise of what steps WMF should be taking. He has advised none and has explicitly stated he believes WMF is in accord with the law. Take this up with him, as I keep telling you, because your opinion is of no value in comparison to his. Roux (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
You have taken a look at Jimbo's discussion page and his comments on Commons talk:Sexual content too, as I've seen. You have to admit that 2257 at least is a serious issue. Try to calm down a bit. --UAltmann (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
[edit]Blocked
I have infinitely blocked your account for logging out to engage in harassment of another user. For privacy purposes I will not reveal the IP publicly (unless you ask), but will provide it to you via email. As always, you may contest this block by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
Tiptoety talk 07:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Those who are able to read have clear advantages...
"By its clear, unambiguous terms, the statute applies to any “producer†of photographs depicting actual sexually explicit conduct, 18 U.S.C. § 2257(a), and “produces†is defined to include anyone who creates the visual representation, for instance a photographer or videographer, as well as anyone who subsequently publishes the image, id. § 2257(h)(2)... The statute by its plain terms makes no exception for photographs taken without a commercial purpose, for photographs intended to never be transferred, or for photographs taken with any other motivation.US-Court of Appeals for the 6th circuit, Please look here on page 5 and please stop claiming, that I am pretending! --UAltmann (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Insult me like that again, sockpuppeteer, and you will be blocked. Mike Godwin is WMF's legal counsel. His legal opinion trumps yours. Roux (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I did not insult you, therefore please stop threatening me. You did not make any new contribution to the issue, either. Mike Godwin's opinion may trump mine, but not the court's. --UAltmann (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
"Those who are able to read..." is a clear insult. You know this, of course. That you pretend otherwise is immaterial. Godwin has stated that he has not been contacted by FBI or DOJ; given his position with WMF and his general celebrity (ever heard of Godwin's Law? Yeah, that's him) he said he would undoubtedly be contacted by them should WMF be in breach. Go take it up with hi, as you clearly don't much know what you're talking about. Bye now. Roux (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course I know, who Godwin is... "Those who are able to read..." is a general statement, if you feel touched by this, it's your problem, not mine. I have only quoted the court's decision and - I want this to be clear - I have not threatended with contacting the FBI, since I believe that WMF is able to resolve the issue itself. I sure do know what I am talking about, since many professional lawyers share my point of view. --UAltmann (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
You don't get to hide behind 'it's a general statement' when you're making insults, is that clear? Good. Whether other lawyers share your point of view is immaterial, as they do not represent WMF. Roux (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Who are you to talk to me like that? As I said, if you take that personally, it is not my problem. My point is, that the legal counsel of WMF is not the last instance to decide on this. So far, you have not made a contribution to the legal issue itself and to the court's statements that I cited, and I don't see that you are willing to do so, therefore, consider this debate closed. EOD. --UAltmann (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I am the person you deliberately insulted, that's who. Unless and until court action is initiated against WMF, yes, the legal counsel is the person whose job it is--you know this--to advise of what steps WMF should be taking. He has advised none and has explicitly stated he believes WMF is in accord with the law. Take this up with him, as I keep telling you, because your opinion is of no value in comparison to his. Roux (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
You have taken a look at Jimbo's discussion page and his comments on Commons talk:Sexual content too, as I've seen. You have to admit that 2257 at least is a serious issue. Try to calm down a bit. --UAltmann (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
[edit]Blocked
I have infinitely blocked your account for logging out to engage in harassment of another user. For privacy purposes I will not reveal the IP publicly (unless you ask), but will provide it to you via email. As always, you may contest this block by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
Tiptoety talk 07:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
