Terms and Rules - Word Choice?

[+ MysticMenace]

under the Moderators section...we probably meant pornographic (unless we just have a severe dislike for phonographs) - would suggest the term be updated.

 

11. Posting discussions or images of minors that can be viewed as sexual or phonographic in nature will not be permitted and will be removed. The final determination will be that of the Moderators. We use 18 U.S. Code 2256 for the definition of a minor. (20 points for 6 months)

[+ stevenkesslar]

I like what I think may be the addition of "that can be viewed as." One time I posted a video of a teen kid coming out to Mayor Pete on national TV. I asked permission of Bill to post it at the beginning of the thread because at other points pictures were removed because they had children in them. Examples: a picture of Pelosi surrounded by the children of newly elected MOCs on the House dais. A picture of a migrant woman and her kids being arrested at the border. These were not anything anyone could view as pornography. I understand that there is an issue of a slippery slope. But as a practical matter I decided after a while this is about the only website on the internet where pictures of children simply don't exist. It seemed weird because these days a lot of Gay men are married to other Gay men and actually have kids of their own.

 

This issue that should be of huge concern is child trafficking. Recently I noticed somebody called out a Rentmen ad that looked like it was a minor in The Deli. By the time I hit the hyperlink the Rentmen ad was removed. So perhaps there were complaints to Rentmen. Given the way Congress is moving there will likely be an increasing focus on child trafficking. So anything that smacks of that, whether it is images or words, should be cracked down on immediately.