Rule 3 Clarification

What should we do to ensure that we are posting unambiguously legal porn?

My initial thought is that supplying the studio name ought to be sufficient, since the studio is required to keep records on model ages and consent to film.

If a studio name appears as a watermark, is that sufficient to demonstrate legality?

How about a PornHub model ID for homemade / amateur videos?

What else would be good enough?


Honestly I don't expect this to affect anyone often but being clear on how to make your jobs easier might... well, make your jobs easier.

 

I'd say just Report to mods and let them figure it out.

The simplest way to make their job simpler would to let them know there's an issue as quickly as possible.

 

1) Don't explicitly say in any form that the subject of the photograph or video is underage, even if they're legal. This still gets you instabanned.
2) If you post an image whose age appears questionable to you but you know better, explicitly add somewhere "This model is legal." and identify the model and their age. Lying about that will get you banned as soon as someone notices.
3) You might not think that an image is questionable, while someone else might think it underage. Be prepared to offer source when challenged, to avoid a ban.

 

Not a mod but you should never ever when posting real porn have the words calling one of the actors a loli, shota, any age below 18, child, young teen or any other word or phrase that implies that who ever is in the photo is underaged even as a joke because when dealing with the law jokes dont fly and the admins/mods will ban your ass as fast as possible to cover themselves.

 

Thanks for responding.

1 - What's some appropriate phrasing for comparing an underage fictional character to a legal nude photo (i.e. a photo of a legal age model who just happens to look young)? Is it enough to put "legal model" somewhere in the text?

2 - Cool. Mentioning model names is also nice for people who want more of her.

3 - If an image contains a studio watermark or a pornhub ID, is that sufficient sourcing?


Again I don't expect this to be a problem but having clarity helps ensure that.

 

The issue you run into here is that you're not trying to satisfy the mods - you're trying to satisfy the mods idea of satisfying the FBI. That's two levels of interpretation away. QQ can insulate itself from this kind of liability in the same way that KiwiFarms does. You declare yourself an open platform, allow anyone to post anything, and then whatever they post is strictly on them, and if they post kiddie porn the only thing QQ has to do to cover its ass is delete it when they get the court order and forward the details of the offender. QQ has chosen not to do that, because they like to police content such as politics, which makes them an editor, which means any kiddie porn that gets published has their assumed approval under the law since they didn't take it down. That necessary vigilance and liability is the price you pay for wanting to control what's on your platform. Taking authority causes you to have responsibility, and disclaiming authority absolves liability provided you don't then exert authority anyways.
However since the FBI already has all the kiddie porn in their database and are the ones seeding it to catch people, not actually being kiddie porn will save you from the FBI because they'll know it's not in their database and so it's legal. But it won't save you from the mods wondering about what the FBI thinks, and nuking your ass to make sure theirs doesn't go to jail.

So 1: Don't. Don't say an underage fictional character is depicted by a legal nude photo. This makes people wonder, and may violate the "indistinguishable reproduction" clause that stops deepfakes and hyper-realistic CGI of minors. Don't make people wonder. Staff can't afford to wonder.
and 3: Probably not. Anyone can shop a watermark. It's reasonable that studio sourcing proves age, since they also have to prove age. But you have to prove sourcing, and 9gag and Ebaum are proof that watermarks don't prove that.

It is an affirmative defense to child pornography only if
 EITHER The "They're legal!" Defense.
   You can prove there are only adults,
  AND
   You did not advertise them as minors,
  SO saying your fictional minor is represented by this legal real image fucks your "they're legal" defense.
 OR ELSE The "Oh shit!" Defense.
   You possess less than three such images,
  AND You immediately
    report,
   AND
    destroy,
   AND
    retain no copy,
   AND
    have not shared,
   any such images,
  SO posting it on a forum fucks your "Oh shit!" defense.
The "Oh shit!" defense is also your affirmative defense for everyone who doesn't have any child porn, because reporting and destroying and retaining no copy and not sharing all zero images is already done.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

 

The second part is definitely not true. It's not a deepfake or "hyper-realistic CGI" if someone happens to look like a fictional character who is underage. It's just a similarity. It's impossible to do a deepfake of a fictional character, and "minor" is not well-defined if you're talking about CGI, so I would assume that only CGI of real people or people who are clearly underage (as in, there's no way it could be a legal nude) would count under that rule. It would be clearly absurd to have a picture that is legal if it is a real person but not legal if it is a realistic CGI image that is indistinguishable from a real person, and I would be very, very surprised if such a law was constitutional in the US.

I would also say that, really, the fact that a legal nude depicts an underage fictional character doesn't have any bearing on whether the person in the picture is underage. I can think of plenty of fictional characters who you would never know are underage based on their picture, and plenty who are not underage but certainly look like they are. There's a big, big difference between saying "this person is underage" and saying "this person looks like someone who is underage". The first is basically saying "I'm posting child porn", the latter is not.

Also, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defence, in general, so people who do not possess child porn do not need an "affirmative defence". You can't be convicted of possessing child porn on the basis of "this looks like child porn", unless it's so obvious that it would be seen as being child porn "beyond reasonable doubt" by a jury, although, as you say, the FBI has far more idea of what is and isn't child porn that we do, due to having databases of it. Even posting "this is child porn" by an image that isn't is not actually proof that it's child porn, the prosecutor would still have to convince the jury that it actually was.

Of course, for the mod of a forum, it's much more difficult, since they can't know whether you're telling the truth or not. And they can't use "I didn't think it was real child porn" as a defence if the person posting it openly said it was or strongly implied that it was.

 

No, the burden of proof is on nobody, because if you get accused for child porn your life is still ruined even if you are completely and 100% innocent and can prove it.

 

That's another matter entirely, though. And there really is no defence against that.

 

The ceaser's wife defense, you need to not only be innocent, but also appear to clearly be innocent that no one will consider accusing you.
Unfortunately in the current climate that's the standard forums such as this need to strive for.