Looks like lots of people must have this going on in their head, huh? Any chance of a retraction? Or do you just like to drop your clever insults and disappear?
He only expressed his opinion which was just as valid as the opposing opinion I expressed.When topics like this come up we all have a chance to voice our opinions.
Lets not be telling members of this forum to "disappear" just because we don't agree with their views.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Lets not be telling members of this forum to "disappear" just because we don't agree with their views.
Harry, I asked for a retraction, not for him to disappear. His comment was an insult against me for thinking there was something not right about this guys "talent" business. He didn't say "I don't think there's anything bad going on". He said my interpretation of those photos somehow "lends more to what's going on in the someone's head rather than anything actually bad going on."
I'm just glad to see that my bringing this up has forced him to remove or hide the suggestive photos. I also find it quite interesting that he seems to have known exactly which ones were the inappropriate ones.
well...erm....
I came looking for some info on batch resizing, as I'm in the middle of setting up like 12 galleries of shots from my daughter's school's production of 'Annie Jr.'.
So I wound up losing like 20 minutes or so with this thread....
sheeshh! I can't imagine some mother or father looking for those galleries stumbling across some of this guy's ('youth talent' oh the irony there...) pics!
I'm surprised and a bit disapointed that it took so long to shut the guy down....(but still VERY thankful it's been addressed...).
Take care everyone, back to the doghouse for me....
If every keystroke was a shutter press I'd be a pro by now...
Now I'm Upset (yet another)
Looking at photographs of young boys or girls, or for that matter, medium aged men/women, old men/women, shot in, what I deem, a 'smutty' way, does not bring me pleasure. I am a student of law. I consider myself a principled and, thus, moral being. I cannot, however, see the validity of many of the arguments made here.
It seems clear to me that there is an order-of-operations, a priority of decision-making so-to-speak, that exists here. First and foremost is the law. We all must pay head to the laws of the land, else run the obvious risks of violation. Second, is Smugmug's right to allow/disallow content. Third, is the Smugmug customer's right to be/not be associated with Smugmug.
Smugmug's attorney's have, as posted in this thread, cleared the activities under question. Smugmug itself, though somewhat reluctantly, has decided that it wishes to allow these activities.
Interestingly (though probably, to be expected), some Smugmug customers have chosen to exercise, not their right to be associate/disassociated with Smugmug, but to lobby for Smugmug to change its stance. Thus, the conflict lies not between Smugmug customers and their opposing viewpoints. Rather, the conflict lies between what Smugmug allows and what its customers will tolerate.
It is certainly reasonable for some individuals to be less tolerant than others. Some customers, for example, may be child photographers who take pictures for purely documentary purposes (as in, the parent's want "nice" pictures of their children). These customers would be less tolerant for the fact that "questionable" material makes their doing business more difficult. Contrarily, some customers may be running talent-scout or modeling businesses. Their interests are obviously different. Yet other customers may be taking a more artistic approach. Each of these groups have different interests. The question remains however, whether these interests can be jointly satisfied at Smugmug, or whether Smugmug will choose-or be forced to choose-certain customers over others in order to satisfy disparate interests.
In considering the issue at hand, one image immediately came to mind. This is not meant to be glib. It came to my mind while I was reading this thread. Rather than conclude my thoughts, I will simply post the image for consideration.
We are the music-makers; and we are the dreamers of dreams.
... come along.
Hmmm... We just received an email from someone who works in law enforcement and who had stumbled upon this thread.
It was a personal, not official, plea for us to shut the site down based on the logic that convicted sex offenders are sometimes not allowed around parks, schools, and other places intended for people under the age of 18 because they don't need nudity for physical attraction.
I don't like the idea of making judgement calls like this but the reaction by our customers is pretty telling...
I also reported this guy to the Paypal Acceptable Use people a few days ago, and just noticed he is no longer selling his CDs through Paypal any more. I have to assume that Paypal decided they didn't want to do business with him.
Looks like lots of people must have this going on in their head, huh? Any chance of a retraction? Or do you just like to drop your clever insults and disappear?
At the time, you made comments about photos you disliked personally. Information about selling DVDs or anything else questionable had not been made.
Very often I see censorship show its ugly head because someone dislikes something or feels it will "corrupt" our "culture" Too often those who cry wolf tend to be the wolf. Too many people get caught doing what they preach against.
I did not single you out by name. It was not meant as an insult. It was an observation.
The issue at hand for me is the all too common mob mentality that's used to get someone elses personal agenda across. Again, maybe you were right, but that doesn't mean the next time someone decides to go into a public forum to raise questions abot someone elses intentions will be.
I feel this was not the best place for what you started. Even if you were right, other avenues would have been better.
The issue at hand for me is the all too common mob mentality that's used to get someone elses personal agenda across. Again, maybe you were right, but that doesn't mean the next time someone decides to go into a public forum to raise questions abot someone elses intentions will be.
I feel this was not the best place for what you started. Even if you were right, other avenues would have been better.
As I said, I tried SmugMug support first, help@smugmug.com. By getting a personal reply from Andy saying that this guy didn't violate SmugMug policies, I felt I had no other way of reaching other people at SmugMug, either management or customers, except for this forum.
I did a little more digging last night. The site he links to (mouseboysmovies) for the CD and DVD sales is run by this guy:
As a Newbie Libertarian - Gallery should go
At the start of this thread I though PMALAND was just over reacting, but I personally think about the time the DVD links were posted SMUMUG needed to be rethinking letting this site continue. Still, my best libertarian thinking reminded me that "Lolita" is not porn even though it deals with a very dark subject.
Now that you have appeared to tie the business to a convicted offender... I am sure this is bad
If your assertion is correct, I think SMUGMUG has very little time to act before they have legal liability in the exploitation of children.
There is very little I will ever endorse censoring, but this is starting to smell like a front for something very dark that a civilized society no matter how free can not tolerate.
Initially when I followed the first "offensive" thread, my reaction was "so what?" However having read all the threads and looking thru the guys pics myself my reaction was... EWW!!!!!
If the link doesn't work go to his page and look for pictures of Model Jimmy....
I do believe that I'll be reporting this site to the appropriate authorities....
EWWW!!!!!!
Kat
Those are pretty gross. No doubt this guy is up to no good.
The sad thing is that from what I see, he technically isnt breaking any laws, so I doubt reporting him will do any good. He clearly is pushing it as much as he can without crossing that line, so he obviously knows that.
No doubt in my mind this guy is a straight up perv & is marketing to the same kinds of people, so he is just gonna keep jumping around from host to host & never go away until he actually breaks a law & gets busted.
Although, im sure he himself is probably breaking a law or two in his personal life, so maybe you can alert the authorities to him & they can pick him up on something else related. Or at least watch him & be aware.
Initially when I followed the first "offensive" thread, my reaction was "so what?" However having read all the threads and looking thru the guys pics myself my reaction was... EWW!!!!!
If the link doesn't work go to his page and look for pictures of Model Jimmy....
I do believe that I'll be reporting this site to the appropriate authorities....
EWWW!!!!!!
Kat
I was exactly the same way. I am extremely liberal in the way I think and that page is sick! Something is not right here. Child modelling is one thing but those poses are disgusting and a child should not be doing that.
Okay, so I started reading this thread thinking "questionable, and not quite right...but not illegal either".
Then as I continued reading and seeing the "defense" of this site by the owner I started thinking "So, your wife helps you with this...so, what? So, the parents sign releases...so, what? NAMBLA members truely believe that they are totally innocent of any wrong doing too!"
Now, seeing the last links with the blatently suggestive poses of these young boys...revolted...disgusted...mortified...no, there isn't even a word in any language that adequately describes my feelings right now!!! Don't EVEN try to tell me that Target wants these types of photos to sell underoos!
Seeing the site as posted on SmugMug...I originally agreed that it didn't warrent being removed. Now, with the other links and evidence showing the premise of his work...he not only needs to be removed, but his personal info also needs to be given to authorities for investigation. (working in a photolab, I had to call the police for photos that were less suggestive than those on SmugMug!) If he is willing to post this stuff here...do you really think it stops here? No way. There is no telling what these poor boys...and others not shown...have been subjected to.
Will reporting him do anything. Not immediately. But, if he isn't already on the radar...this will get him there.
I agree, his site needs to go. The site on smugmug is still up and working as of 730am PST. His other site is even worse. There are some links to it in the previous posts. I am not for government getting involved in the internet, but where ever this site is being hosted I would like to read their terms and conditions and I think local authorities need to be contacted. The parents of the children need to be severly looked at as well.
Not to sound preachy, but I would think that a modeling agency would be able to see if a kid is going to work for an ad without seening the kid with his shirt off.
Just read all of this thread and the link to the Jimyh photos is indeed disturbing and bordering on exploitation. I also looked at smugmugs popular photos page and worringly right near the top of popular searches are the words 'boy' and 'boys' (no mention of girls)
Would it be worth blocking such words from the search engine? maybe this would help cut down on the problem?
YouthTalent, I really wish you would just stop what you are doing. It's disgusting. I wish I had looked closer at it earlier, and I would have seen how you're exploiting children. Disgusting. Stop it. Go away. Stop hurting.
I'll be alerting authorities in the hopes that at least one child does not have to fall victim to the sick lust of an older man, and that people like you will stop exploiting them.
I dont know if it will help or not, I did a whois lookup and found the hosting company of the other site mentioned in the previous posts and read their acceptable use policy. It does not allow what he has so I reported it.
Come on Smugmug.. Do the right thing on this one and shut it down. I was let down once by Smugmug regarding another site I reported, I hope it doesn't happen again! This is a ground ball - close it down..............Why is it taking so long again to shut the site down? It was first reported in May of this year..three months ago.
Andy, I apoligize. I followed a link from the prevous post leading to a site not run by Smugmug. I wrote the comment without thinking first.
If you can, please remove my post on this forum. From now on, I will think before I write...........I know this was a heated subject and this was the first time I saw the post.
Andy, I apoligize. I followed a link from the prevous post leading to a site not run by Smugmug. I wrote the comment without thinking first.
If you can, please remove my post on this forum. From now on, I will think before I write...........I know this was a heated subject and this was the first time I saw the post.
David, YouthTalent is still promoting boys in sexual poses, though they are clothed. I don't like it. But he's complied with our request to remove the really objectionable stuff, the movies links, etc. But the links to his "other" sites are still there and lead the viewer to stuff that's pretty sad, IMO. I'm working on encouraging him to take his photos elsewhere.
The OTHER site is the one that's no longer on SmugMug. That's what I was referring to in my last post.
Thank you Andy... You are the man. Hopefully, Smugmug will see the "Totality of the Circumstances" surrounding the YouthTalent siteand also shut it down. This one is actualy easier to shut down than Azazel's.
UPDATE: Thank you again Andy, I now see the YouthTalelent's site has been shut down on Smugmug............
I really hate to...
run the risk of beating a dead horse but it doesn't sit well with me that:
SmugMug has REFUSED to shut this guy down based on clearly objectionable content AND 'guilt' by association.
I don't care if the link leads to a smugmug site or not. The guy is into some sick stuff and even if his smugmug page is 'clean' it is directly associated with a person who is not.
Tell the lawyers to sit down and shut up, and pull the plug.
Yes, it really is that easy....
and this:
"David, YouthTalent is still promoting boys in sexual poses, though they are clothed. I don't like it. But he's complied with our request to remove the really objectionable stuff, the movies links, etc. But the links to his "other" sites are still there and lead the viewer to stuff that's pretty sad, IMO. I'm working on encouraging him to take his photos elsewhere."
Doesn't cut it-period. "encouraging him to take his photos elsewhere"? What? That's like saying "We're encouraging pedophiles not to hang out around playgrounds". Step up shut it down, and let *him* play the next hand. I highly doubt he would....
Sorry in advance for the heated 'tone' but this seems to be such a no-brainer it's just not funny anymore.
If every keystroke was a shutter press I'd be a pro by now...
David, YouthTalent is still promoting boys in sexual poses, though they are clothed. I don't like it. But he's complied with our request to remove the really objectionable stuff, the movies links, etc. But the links to his "other" sites are still there and lead the viewer to stuff that's pretty sad, IMO. I'm working on encouraging him to take his photos elsewhere.
The OTHER site is the one that's no longer on SmugMug. That's what I was referring to in my last post.
So if if the pictures don't show attrocities you are fine posting images promoting the KKK and Nazi Party? I want to get an idea of where you take a stand. Child sexual abuse is ok as long as the pictures on your site are only the lead in to worse site?
When do you grow a back bone and take a stand for kids? This is like the opposite letter of the rules vs common sense that gets kids expelled fo sharing asprin and bring .5" gi joe guns to school. THe human mind is capable of making judgements.
I am really sorry to be nasty about this, but the idea that this lead in site which I assume is designed to create business leads for the stuff you don't like is ok because those pictures don't cross the line, they just help people find the ones that are kiddie porn, is total crap.
In my mind Smugmug is toleratiing child abuse..
I want the CEO here on record that SMugmug is fine being the lead in site for child pornograhy as long as the sick pictures it helps people find are not on your servers...
Because at the point, I think we have a Slash.dot moment.
BTW his site uses a google search gadget to direct smugmug vistors to this site.. so smugmug is an entry point to more child porn http://www.youthtalentgalleries.com/
So if if the pictures don't show attrocities you are fine posting images promoting the KKK and Nazi Party? I want to get an idea of where you take a stand. Child sexual abuse is ok as long as the pictures on your site are only the lead in to worse site?
When do you grow a back bone and take a stand for kids? This is like the opposite letter of the rules vs common sense that gets kids expelled fo sharing asprin and bring .5" gi joe guns to school. THe human mind is capable of making judgements.
I am really sorry to be nasty about this, but the idea that this lead in site which I assume is designed to create business leads for the stuff you don't like is ok because those pictures don't cross the line, they just help people find the ones that are kiddie porn, is total crap.
In my mind Smugmug is toleratiing child abuse..
I want the CEO here on record that SMugmug is fine being the lead in site for child pornograhy as long as the sick pictures it helps people find are not on your servers...
Because at the point, I think we have a Slash.dot moment.
HI Ken,
Please chill. There's no need to be nasty about this. Civil debate please, only. Throwing stones and making threats are not helpful, either.
If you'll take the time to read my posts above, you'll see that I'm not happy about this site at all.
Now that that's out of the way...
Can you show me child porn - because if you can that'll help the situation.
Comments
He only expressed his opinion which was just as valid as the opposing opinion I expressed.When topics like this come up we all have a chance to voice our opinions.
Lets not be telling members of this forum to "disappear" just because we don't agree with their views.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Harry, I asked for a retraction, not for him to disappear. His comment was an insult against me for thinking there was something not right about this guys "talent" business. He didn't say "I don't think there's anything bad going on". He said my interpretation of those photos somehow "lends more to what's going on in the someone's head rather than anything actually bad going on."
I'm just glad to see that my bringing this up has forced him to remove or hide the suggestive photos. I also find it quite interesting that he seems to have known exactly which ones were the inappropriate ones.
http://www.philmaland.com/
I came looking for some info on batch resizing, as I'm in the middle of setting up like 12 galleries of shots from my daughter's school's production of 'Annie Jr.'.
So I wound up losing like 20 minutes or so with this thread....
sheeshh! I can't imagine some mother or father looking for those galleries stumbling across some of this guy's ('youth talent' oh the irony there...) pics!
I'm surprised and a bit disapointed that it took so long to shut the guy down....(but still VERY thankful it's been addressed...).
Take care everyone, back to the doghouse for me....
The site is not shut down.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Looking at photographs of young boys or girls, or for that matter, medium aged men/women, old men/women, shot in, what I deem, a 'smutty' way, does not bring me pleasure. I am a student of law. I consider myself a principled and, thus, moral being. I cannot, however, see the validity of many of the arguments made here.
It seems clear to me that there is an order-of-operations, a priority of decision-making so-to-speak, that exists here. First and foremost is the law. We all must pay head to the laws of the land, else run the obvious risks of violation. Second, is Smugmug's right to allow/disallow content. Third, is the Smugmug customer's right to be/not be associated with Smugmug.
Smugmug's attorney's have, as posted in this thread, cleared the activities under question. Smugmug itself, though somewhat reluctantly, has decided that it wishes to allow these activities.
Interestingly (though probably, to be expected), some Smugmug customers have chosen to exercise, not their right to be associate/disassociated with Smugmug, but to lobby for Smugmug to change its stance. Thus, the conflict lies not between Smugmug customers and their opposing viewpoints. Rather, the conflict lies between what Smugmug allows and what its customers will tolerate.
It is certainly reasonable for some individuals to be less tolerant than others. Some customers, for example, may be child photographers who take pictures for purely documentary purposes (as in, the parent's want "nice" pictures of their children). These customers would be less tolerant for the fact that "questionable" material makes their doing business more difficult. Contrarily, some customers may be running talent-scout or modeling businesses. Their interests are obviously different. Yet other customers may be taking a more artistic approach. Each of these groups have different interests. The question remains however, whether these interests can be jointly satisfied at Smugmug, or whether Smugmug will choose-or be forced to choose-certain customers over others in order to satisfy disparate interests.
In considering the issue at hand, one image immediately came to mind. This is not meant to be glib. It came to my mind while I was reading this thread. Rather than conclude my thoughts, I will simply post the image for consideration.
... come along.
that's certainly comforting to know
After all, he only posts pics here, he sells child porn elsewhere.
Hopefully a good Samaritan LEO will drop a dime on him to the right people.
Cool it.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
I also reported this guy to the Paypal Acceptable Use people a few days ago, and just noticed he is no longer selling his CDs through Paypal any more. I have to assume that Paypal decided they didn't want to do business with him.
http://www.philmaland.com/
At the time, you made comments about photos you disliked personally. Information about selling DVDs or anything else questionable had not been made.
Very often I see censorship show its ugly head because someone dislikes something or feels it will "corrupt" our "culture" Too often those who cry wolf tend to be the wolf. Too many people get caught doing what they preach against.
I did not single you out by name. It was not meant as an insult. It was an observation.
The issue at hand for me is the all too common mob mentality that's used to get someone elses personal agenda across. Again, maybe you were right, but that doesn't mean the next time someone decides to go into a public forum to raise questions abot someone elses intentions will be.
I feel this was not the best place for what you started. Even if you were right, other avenues would have been better.
I gave the site link, and the DVD ads were right at the top. Did you even look at the site before you threw out your comment?
As I said, I tried SmugMug support first, help@smugmug.com. By getting a personal reply from Andy saying that this guy didn't violate SmugMug policies, I felt I had no other way of reaching other people at SmugMug, either management or customers, except for this forum.
I did a little more digging last night. The site he links to (mouseboysmovies) for the CD and DVD sales is run by this guy:
http://www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/Secured/p23.aspx?oid=27286
http://www.philmaland.com/
At the start of this thread I though PMALAND was just over reacting, but I personally think about the time the DVD links were posted SMUMUG needed to be rethinking letting this site continue. Still, my best libertarian thinking reminded me that "Lolita" is not porn even though it deals with a very dark subject.
Now that you have appeared to tie the business to a convicted offender... I am sure this is bad
If your assertion is correct, I think SMUGMUG has very little time to act before they have legal liability in the exploitation of children.
There is very little I will ever endorse censoring, but this is starting to smell like a front for something very dark that a civilized society no matter how free can not tolerate.
Keeping in mind that I am a WAY liberal artist, and have weird art on my walls. This page I found totally freaked me out. http://www.youthtalentgalleries.com/showgallery.php/cat/623
If the link doesn't work go to his page and look for pictures of Model Jimmy....
I do believe that I'll be reporting this site to the appropriate authorities....
EWWW!!!!!!
Kat
Bill Brandt
Kids need to get paid?! What, they don't have parents taking care of them?
Ugh!
The sad thing is that from what I see, he technically isnt breaking any laws, so I doubt reporting him will do any good. He clearly is pushing it as much as he can without crossing that line, so he obviously knows that.
No doubt in my mind this guy is a straight up perv & is marketing to the same kinds of people, so he is just gonna keep jumping around from host to host & never go away until he actually breaks a law & gets busted.
Although, im sure he himself is probably breaking a law or two in his personal life, so maybe you can alert the authorities to him & they can pick him up on something else related. Or at least watch him & be aware.
I was exactly the same way. I am extremely liberal in the way I think and that page is sick! Something is not right here. Child modelling is one thing but those poses are disgusting and a child should not be doing that.
www.capture-the-pixel.com
Then as I continued reading and seeing the "defense" of this site by the owner I started thinking "So, your wife helps you with this...so, what? So, the parents sign releases...so, what? NAMBLA members truely believe that they are totally innocent of any wrong doing too!"
Now, seeing the last links with the blatently suggestive poses of these young boys...revolted...disgusted...mortified...no, there isn't even a word in any language that adequately describes my feelings right now!!! Don't EVEN try to tell me that Target wants these types of photos to sell underoos!
Seeing the site as posted on SmugMug...I originally agreed that it didn't warrent being removed. Now, with the other links and evidence showing the premise of his work...he not only needs to be removed, but his personal info also needs to be given to authorities for investigation. (working in a photolab, I had to call the police for photos that were less suggestive than those on SmugMug!) If he is willing to post this stuff here...do you really think it stops here? No way. There is no telling what these poor boys...and others not shown...have been subjected to.
Will reporting him do anything. Not immediately. But, if he isn't already on the radar...this will get him there.
www.PhotoByLaurie.com
Not to sound preachy, but I would think that a modeling agency would be able to see if a kid is going to work for an ad without seening the kid with his shirt off.
www.joeywashburn.com
Would it be worth blocking such words from the search engine? maybe this would help cut down on the problem?
Just a thought.
I just had to set your public galleries to photorank=no, I thought you would have done this.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
YouthTalent, I really wish you would just stop what you are doing. It's disgusting. I wish I had looked closer at it earlier, and I would have seen how you're exploiting children. Disgusting. Stop it. Go away. Stop hurting.
I'll be alerting authorities in the hopes that at least one child does not have to fall victim to the sick lust of an older man, and that people like you will stop exploiting them.
I need a shower.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
This is just WRONG with a capital W.
Thank you, Andy!
www.tippiepics.com
I dont know if it will help or not
www.joeywashburn.com
You were? Do you see that site in question anymore?
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
If you can, please remove my post on this forum. From now on, I will think before I write...........I know this was a heated subject and this was the first time I saw the post.
I was let down by Smugmug's postion on this site - http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=29498, I still did not hear about the final outcome..
David
The OTHER site is the one that's no longer on SmugMug. That's what I was referring to in my last post.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
UPDATE: Thank you again Andy, I now see the YouthTalelent's site has been shut down on Smugmug............
run the risk of beating a dead horse but it doesn't sit well with me that:
SmugMug has REFUSED to shut this guy down based on clearly objectionable content AND 'guilt' by association.
I don't care if the link leads to a smugmug site or not. The guy is into some sick stuff and even if his smugmug page is 'clean' it is directly associated with a person who is not.
Tell the lawyers to sit down and shut up, and pull the plug.
Yes, it really is that easy....
and this:
"David, YouthTalent is still promoting boys in sexual poses, though they are clothed. I don't like it. But he's complied with our request to remove the really objectionable stuff, the movies links, etc. But the links to his "other" sites are still there and lead the viewer to stuff that's pretty sad, IMO. I'm working on encouraging him to take his photos elsewhere."
Doesn't cut it-period. "encouraging him to take his photos elsewhere"? What? That's like saying "We're encouraging pedophiles not to hang out around playgrounds". Step up shut it down, and let *him* play the next hand. I highly doubt he would....
Sorry in advance for the heated 'tone' but this seems to be such a no-brainer it's just not funny anymore.
So if if the pictures don't show attrocities you are fine posting images promoting the KKK and Nazi Party? I want to get an idea of where you take a stand. Child sexual abuse is ok as long as the pictures on your site are only the lead in to worse site?
When do you grow a back bone and take a stand for kids? This is like the opposite letter of the rules vs common sense that gets kids expelled fo sharing asprin and bring .5" gi joe guns to school. THe human mind is capable of making judgements.
I am really sorry to be nasty about this, but the idea that this lead in site which I assume is designed to create business leads for the stuff you don't like is ok because those pictures don't cross the line, they just help people find the ones that are kiddie porn, is total crap.
In my mind Smugmug is toleratiing child abuse..
I want the CEO here on record that SMugmug is fine being the lead in site for child pornograhy as long as the sick pictures it helps people find are not on your servers...
Because at the point, I think we have a Slash.dot moment.
BTW his site uses a google search gadget to direct smugmug vistors to this site.. so smugmug is an entry point to more child porn
http://www.youthtalentgalleries.com/
HI Ken,
Please chill. There's no need to be nasty about this. Civil debate please, only. Throwing stones and making threats are not helpful, either.
If you'll take the time to read my posts above, you'll see that I'm not happy about this site at all.
Now that that's out of the way...
Can you show me child porn - because if you can that'll help the situation.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter