Library camgirl busted

[TacoBelle]

I know a few people have said that MFC seems to have not done anything to reprimand Katsumi, and they're all in various states of disbelief/anger/fury. MFC has already explained that they take models' privacy seriously and will NOT announce to the public what actions were taken or what was said to the models. The only reason we know that they did anything toward the 2 library-show girls is because their profiles are gone (therefore, one can deduce that they were banned).

As for Kat: I'm assuming that MFC did have an extensive chat/email/whatever with her because 1) all of the tags that were "questionable" before have been removed from her profile. She used to have things like "Daddy" and has since replaced them with things like "Submissive" and "Body Mods."
2) I did not know this until someone posted about it in this thread, but she did have her name as JanJailbait for a period of time. The only way a name change shows on MCG is if you change your name and broadcast under the new name. Obviously, either MFC told her to change it and she complied or she changed it on her own.


Regardless, MFC is cracking down on models. If you're a model, don't do anything stupid. If you're a member, don't encourage/bribe/threaten the model to make her do something stupid. And if you don't like the way a certain camsite handles a situation, don't use it. But know that you're only hearing one side of the story when you read about an instance from a second-hand person (reporter/model mentor/etc). Unless Katsumi specifically showed you every correspondence between MFC and herself, you have no reason to bitch about what actions you think they're taking (or not taking).

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Obviously, the best solution is for people to be adults and realize that where no wrong is committed, a person doesn't just become a bad person by being involved in a situation they had no control over to no fault of their own. Then this entire matter would settle itself. It's only because of this weird guilt by association people have, which is creating even more guilt, and so on...

In the real world, people don't always behave like adults, though. Do they? No one has the right to put others, especially children, in a potentially embarrassing situation simply for their own monetary gain. To do so is not what I'd call "behaving like an adult".

So if a person goes out on the street and shoots a video for her YouTube channel with bystanders passing by, and makes money off her YouTube hits, she's violating the bystanders' rights? Because there's literally millions of YouTube videos shot in public places and it's almost certain not everyone making those videos obtained the consent of every single person appearing in them.

Since it's easier to understand the Wiki, that than the actual USCC let me quote that.

A model release, known in similar contexts as a liability waiver, is a legal release typically signed by the subject of a photograph granting permission to publish the photograph in one form or another. The legal rights of the signatories in reference to the material is thereafter subject to the allowances and restrictions stated in the release, and also possibly in exchange for compensation paid to the photographed.

No release is required for publication, as news, of a photo taken of an identifiable person when the person is in a public place. In general, no release is required for publication of a photo taken of an identifiable person when the person is in a public space unless the use is for trade or direct commercial use, which is defined as promoting a product, service, or idea.[1] Publication of a photo of an identifiable person, even if taken when the person is in a public place, for commercial use, without a model release signed by that person, can result in civil liability for whoever publishes the photograph.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release

Most youtube video shot in public qualifies as news. There generally is little commercial gain involved. On the other hand if you go out and film Farting Fred for your stupid human tricks YouTube channel, and the video goes viral and you the filmmaker you start collecting ad revenue from YouTube, Fred can and in many cases will sue you if he has not given you permission to use his image.
This is why when you watch hidden camera shows, or on the street interviews for late night shows, you see a fair number of pixalated people, cause the film makers have gotten a model release from everybody else. But you don't see lots of blurred out people for newscasts cause its news and unless the person specifically says I don't want to be on camera the news crews generally don't need permission to film somebody in a public place.

A camshow in a library is about as blatant commercial usage as you can imagine. The presence of others is directly promoting the product, "I am getting naked in a public place where others can see me" . It enhances the commercial appeal and is quite lucrative to both the model and MFC. Add to that the murky subject of nudity, obscenity, and the presence of children. It is a situation begging for a class action lawsuit on behalf of all the folks broadcast without permission on MFC shows.

 

[Azhrarn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release

Most youtube video shot in public qualifies as news. There generally is little commercial gain involved. On the other hand if you go out and film Farting Fred for your stupid human tricks YouTube channel, and the video goes viral and you the filmmaker you start collecting ad revenue from YouTube, Fred can and in many cases will sue you if he has not given you permission to use his image.
This is why when you watch hidden camera shows, or on the street interviews for late night shows, you see a fair number of pixalated people, cause the film makers have gotten a model release from everybody else. But you don't see lots of blurred out people for newscasts cause its news and unless the person specifically says I don't want to be on camera the news crews generally don't need permission to film somebody in a public place.

A camshow in a library is about as blatant commercial usage as you can imagine. The presence of others is directly promoting the product, "I am getting naked in a public place where others can see me" . It enhances the commercial appeal and is quite lucrative to both the model and MFC. Add to that the murky subject of nudity, obscenity, and the presence of children. It is a situation begging for a class action lawsuit on behalf of all the folks broadcast without permission on MFC shows.

Although I like your post in general, I feel that one important issue is being obscured. Not all pornography is commercial; however, even when such is the case, the two principles I mentioned above still apply - all participants have to be of legal age, and all participants have to give their consent. And obviously in the case of legal minors (and especially children), such consent is impossible to obtain. Of all the reasons for MFC's legal counsel to stamp out library/public shows, it seems to me this one would be the most compelling.

 

[Azhrarn]

Does anyone know where the name PumpkinSpice came from? Because it's just been brought to my attention that the word Pumpkin can refer to incest in a certain context...

 

[ramblin]

Does anyone know where the name PumpkinSpice came from? Because it's just been brought to my attention that the word Pumpkin can refer to incest in a certain context...

I'll be sure to bring your complaint to Starbucks, or just Beavis it up next fall with the "heh, heh, you said 'pump kin'"

 

[Alcon]

All right, well, forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but the whole idea behind having unwitting audience members is that at any time one of them might stumble upon the cam girl and discover what she’s doing. In one of the screenshots that was posted, you can see a small girl speaking to a cam girl who is performing a library show. How would you like to be this girl’s mother, and have to answer her questions as to why a grown woman was taking off her clothes in public and touching herself?

The idea is that someone *might* stumble upon the girl, but never actually does. It's not to actually fall over the edge and be discovered. The fact that being discovered would be a genuinely very bad thing that makes it thrilling to begin with. ( If the cam girl is actually talking to children while exposing herself obviously that is terrible and wrong. )

The point you seem to be missing is that exposing oneself in public is usually considered illegal. But as I’ve already pointed out in a previous post, there’s a very clear double standard that applied to women in this area. For example, if a man stumbles upon a cam girl and is shocked by her nudity, I suppose the male viewers would find that amusing. But suppose it was a man who was performing a library show, and he exposed himself to a young woman to capture her reaction on film. Further suppose that young woman was raised in a family that is religiously orthodox. Are you still prepared to argue there’s been no "moral wrong" committed?

That would be deliberately exposing himself to a particular individual to capture a reaction, which is very different than what we are talking about here. If a male model were to furtively take his penis out in a corner of the library at intervals with maybe three or four people walking by over a 30 minute period and he is not discovered, I don't think that would be any worse.

If someone can't intuitively understand that engaging in sexual activities where they might be discovered by minors and children is wrong, well, I don't think there's any logical argument I could make to awaken that awareness. But this is precisely why we have laws. People can and will argue “moral wrong” until the human race becomes extinct. For my purposes it’s sufficient that these activities are illegal in any public or college library and are also violations of the MFC Rules for Models.

For what it's worth, I spent quite a bit of time in a large university library for many years and I can't remember ever seeing any families there, (which meant no children of course). Children are too loud for libraries. Generally you needed a university ID or special pass just to get in the door. Rules and laws are made by people, and they were made through people mutually discussing what is a moral wrong and what isn't. And people continue to debate and change the laws because we continue to debate and change what we think is right. You're asserting there is a moral wrong and I'm asserting that there isn't. The question is hanging between us. You arrogantly brushing me off with "the law is the law so I won't discuss it" misses the point. But I see I'm not likely to convince you or most others here, so I'll call it a night.

 

[WickedTouch]

Does anyone know where the name PumpkinSpice came from? Because it's just been brought to my attention that the word Pumpkin can refer to incest in a certain context...

:roll: FFS!!!!

 

[eclipse76]

Does anyone know where the name PumpkinSpice came from? Because it's just been brought to my attention that the word Pumpkin can refer to incest in a certain context...

Of course, pump is obviously an euphemism for masturbation, and kin is "family relationship or kinship. a group of persons descended from a common ancestor or constituting a people". It's a codeword for incest.

See, it's connected to hardcore porn too as this article shows:

 

[Teagan]

Obviously, the best solution is for people to be adults and realize that where no wrong is committed, a person doesn't just become a bad person by being involved in a situation they had no control over to no fault of their own. Then this entire matter would settle itself. It's only because of this weird guilt by association people have, which is creating even more guilt, and so on...

In the real world, people don't always behave like adults, though. Do they? No one has the right to put others, especially children, in a potentially embarrassing situation simply for their own monetary gain. To do so is not what I'd call "behaving like an adult".

So if a person goes out on the street and shoots a video for her YouTube channel with bystanders passing by, and makes money off her YouTube hits, she's violating the bystanders' rights? Because there's literally millions of YouTube videos shot in public places and it's almost certain not everyone making those videos obtained the consent of every single person appearing in them.

Is she violating their rights? Yes. They did not consent to be placed on the web for all to see. And I do believe that is something we should have to consent to. Whether it be youtube, or a porn site like MFC. Our image is important and can effect us greatly in our future and that should be taken into account when people shoot bystanders. It not only effects us but our families and partners as well. (Depending on your job yes your family members lives are up for deciding the jobs you can have.)

A good example of this and what you said about a popular video would be Pharrells Happy on Youtube. Theres a 24 hour version even so literally hundreds of people on the street caught on film whether they want to be or not I would presume. I dont see any signs on the street stating that there will be filming and to stay off the Blvd if they dont wanna be on film. And i highly doubt they got consent from them all. (I dont know for sure but let's presume they didnt for the sake of an example here.)

All of these people in this video with over 39 million views will someday be ran through a face recognition program and be tagged and forever tied to it whether they like it or not. And thus their lives may change in irrevocable unforeseen ways. Maybe good ones, maybe bad ones, but both without true consent. While being in a music video is not looked upon in society as badly as porn all it takes is one person judging someone for this to change their life forever. An admissions officer denying an application, a hiring manager denying a job, a potential date googling and passing them up, etc.

While it would be great to live in a world where people would be adults and overlook things the simple fact is we do not live in that society here in America. It shouldnt be shameful to be in the background of a porn, or embarrassing, or harmful to futures but it is. Not only for the rando in the frame but for the people doing the porn too. So while in an ideal world you can blow off taping a bystander in a porn background and nothing would come of it, we don't live there. And realistically we never will. So you have to look at the reality and culture we live in now which is full of judgement and stigma and acting accordingly to such. Be an adult to start with and dont tape people without consent to begin with and it won't even be an issue then. Now, in the future, for you, and for anyone else. It would be great to fight such thoughts and disrespect to anyone associated with the sex industry in any way, sadly a lot of people feel the exact opposite and are fighting just as hard for their cause. Who will win only history will tell. Im hoping as we (America) evolve we go the way of most of Europe where it's not as big of a deal.

I know that as a law right now you can record people in public without issue as outside there is no right to privacy. However I do believe one day this will change as this software becomes available and laws catch up. Its a non issue right now as it's not prevalent to any Tom and Dick. But once you start getting people with hits on whatever cool search engine at the time that they do not agree with and it effects their life in any way you will see them fighting back against it and probably some lawsuits too boot. Sad but true and it will come to that. Granted we may be 10+ years at least away from that but we all know it is coming.

As a camgirl I protect my privacy as much as I can. 99% of us do. To not extend that privacy to other people who may be on film does not logically make sense to me. It's irresponsible to say the least. No matter if they are a child, adult, or elderly we should be smart and protect others privacy as much as we do our own every day. Going in to public and filming we are not doing that as we should be. It's unfair to be willy nilly with other peoples lives while we protect our own.

At the risk of introducing common sense into a thread where posting smileys seems to be considered a noteworthy contribution,

Dude my post to you was very relevant to what you were saying. You may not like it but that's the case. Doing it in smilies or pics was just a nice cute way of doing it. I also saw no point in arguing with you as if you had read this thread and still felt the way you did (believing a crazy persons website alone) then there was no point in trying to "set you straight" with facts and a whole story. I know when my time is probably better spent elsewhere. I was nice and polite but please dont respond to it passive aggressively acting as if we have no common sense here and you're the voice of reason on this matter. Someone ill informed on a subject isn't exactly gonna be relevant to the topic and to me at least didnt deserve a point on point argument on it.

Anyway if it wasnt clear enough to you Pumpkin Spice is a drink. A delicious drink sent from the heavens that is only bestowed upon us in the fall. Only a certain amount is made and distributed and it is a highly desirable coveted cup of euphoria. Im pretty sure it's what Sally was having in that diner.

 

[housewifeswag]

She changed her name to PumpkinSpice because she wanted a "basic white girl name" ... like all the white girl jokes in fall.

 

[Azhrarn]

@Alcon - I’ve spoken to a friend about these shows, and he tells me it’s not uncommon for the girls to be discovered at all. Often times the girl will say “Oh he saw me!” and in the background you’ll see guys either circling around or popping their heads up. And the thing is, you have no idea how blatant the girl is being. Your view is limited pretty much to the girl herself. She could very easily be deliberately exposing herself to attract attention and make her show more interesting, and you’d never know it.

As for arrogance, no, I’m referring to reality. If you get pulled over by a cop for speeding, don’t expect to get very far by arguing that there’s been no moral wrong committed. You want to have that debate, be my guest. The point you’re missing is that while that “debate" is going on, we still have laws that have to be respected and enforced.

And one final point, I guess that girl that appeared in a screenshot was just a ghost? After all, since you’ve never seen a child in a “large university library” that means it never happens, in any library, ever, right?

@eclipse76 - Here’s a newsflash for you. People commonly use code words when referring to incest, since it’s pretty much illegal everywhere. And when someone has a history of using “jailbait” in their name, and tags such as “Daddy” (see the post by I_Am_Iris above) it just seems a little odd that their new name contains a code word for incest too. What are the odds?

@Teagan - Every time you say “crazy person” you just make yourself look bad. Adults don’t base their arguments upon ad hominem attacks. As I’ve stated before, the screenshots speak for themselves. Unless someone has introduced evidence showing they were photoshopped, they are more than damning enough. There’s been a clear pattern in this thread of people attempting to minimize and deny the knowing involvement of the cam girl in question, and over time as more facts are brought to light it’s becoming rather clear what the true situation is.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Wow, this thread has devolved into a lot of conjecture nonsense.

 

[Teagan]

Sigh....

No one is arguing morality to you. So keep bringing it up like we are but you're just arguing with yourself man. Besides that every person has different morals so trying to act as if yours are right and every one elses is wrong is just inane. Morals are an individual choice up to each person and differ greatly. You have yours and that is great but trying to shove them down someone elses throat who may not agree with you, or in my case never even touched on it, is just pathetic. Also I think you're late for your Westboro lynching aren't you?

As far as your "friend" who has no idea, or you, of how many girls are "discovered." There at any time is hundreds sometimes thousands of models online and neither of you, nor anyone else, know who is doing a public show at any given moment. Who is even doing one with people around. Who is doing it with the permission of the establishment. Who is not breaking any laws in their area by being topless or even naked. Who has hired people to play "bystanders." Who is in fact breaking any laws or not. Seeing one or two girls having people in the background does not mean that is the norm or that it's common practice to get caught. Unless you're scouring MFC and asking every girl who has done one if they have been caught then you have no idea. Your "facts" are just baseless and rumors and gossip. I do not agree with having people on cam that did not consent personally, as I stated very clearly before, but that's a personal opinion of mine and i'm not trying to play it off as anything else. We all know it's not allowed on MFC and I dont see anyone arguing that rule should not be enforced.

Just fyi lots of girls have cammed from brothels with full permission to do so. Some have done it in bars after closing with full permission. Some are in clubs again with permission. Some in sex shops, and various other places with fully complying with public laws in every way. There are these places in US and across the world contrary to your belief it seems. Girls have friends who own establishments and let them use them as well. While man on cam is forbidden on MFC these are all public shows where the men watching through the computer think the girls are getting caught but in fact are not. Nor are they breaking any laws where they are. If a man steps foot on cam then the girl should deal with the consequences but otherwise just being in public or in a business is not always against the law in an area. Seeing as you actually have no idea what the situation is, where she is, and only know how a girl may play it off that best suits her and how to get tokens then I suggest you just ignore it if you don't wanna watch it. Heck for all you know she could have her own room set up to look like the corner of a cafe (not hard to do) playing background cafe noise from her ipod. "Oh look that guy over there is looking at me. hehe." You the watcher think she is in a cafe breaking some laws while innocent people are being exposed to her but in reality it's all a ploy for money. Get it? Unless you are standing right next to a girl and can see her MFC broadcast screen is live and she is in public in a city where nudity is prohibited then you have no clue and have no right to speak on it as if it's against the law.

Lastly trying to say I look bad for calling someone who is crazy crazy just shows how ignorant you are. I have talked with Juju both on this forum in MO (a place you will never see) and in her room while she was on cam. As well as other interactions she has had with people. What have you done but looked at a website? So it's safe to say I know a lil more about her than you do buddy. I am coming off from a place of having dealt with her and her tantrums. I have seen it first hand. I will not copy and paste things she said in MO to show anyone just how nutty she is, but really I dont have to cause she acts publicly nutty as well. If you wanna side with her and defend her all while not knowing her in any way then that is your choice, but do not try to tell me I look bad because I have stated nothing but facts and knowledge based on actual interaction with her.

And as for screenshots I highly suggest you reread this thread again as they have been discussed and I fail to see your point in bringing up members actions against Kat. Kat is not her members. Ive said it before but i'll say it again I have gotten millions of gross, inappropriate, illegal, and just bad taste comments in my room from members. Am I to blame for their actions? NO. So stop trying to make a case against Kat based solely on the actions of others. Actually have some facts then maybe i'll be on your side, but right now all you have is other people having a bad taste convo in a models room. That is not me minimizing or denying Kats involvement, that's me looking at actual facts for what they are instead. Come at me with some actual evidence and some actual sense next time.

Now ... :shhh:

 

[Azhrarn]

Sigh....

No one is arguing morality to you.

If you wanna side with her and defend her all while not knowing her in any way then that is your choice...

So stop trying to make a case against Kat based solely on the actions of others.

I "highly suggest" you go back and re-read all of my posts, since I can only assume you must have me confused with someone else. First of all, I'm not arguing morality, Alcon is. In one of my posts I even stated "I'm not arguing morality, I'm arguing legality." So if you want to attack someone for trying to impose their morality on others, then kindly direct your fire at Alcon since all I'm doing is responding to his posts and his attempts to evade the issues by falling back on his personal view of morality. Second, I'm not siding with Juju nor have I ever defended her. What I said instead was that it would be wiser to simply ignore her because she would go away on her own. Third, when you choose a name like "janjailbait," and use a tag like "Daddy," and simply sit and laugh while your chat room members are having a conversation about things like sex slaves, incest, pedophilia and prostitution, you can't really claim innocence or non-involvement. One cam girl I know well, will ban a member within seconds if they say anything out of line. Now if other cam girls choose to let their rooms run riot, that's on them.

 

[Teagan]

At any given time the Lounge can choose to troll a room. Or more commonly 4chan does. It's happened many times before. More than I can count. They will come in and while some will be nice a majority can be cruel. I watched one time where they took over a models chat for almost 10 minutes to talk bestiality. It was disgusting. The model tried to ignore them and talk with her normal members. At any time though I or anyone else could have screen shot the chat in her room and built a case against her and made it look as if she was all for it and in on things. I could start a petition calling on MFC to ban her though she did no wrong. I could go on a rampage on twitter and a website about her. I could give interviews. I could do anything Juju is doing just the same as I have "evidence" against the model. You know what's still not there though? A model who did anything wrong. She is in fact innocent. While choosing not to ban every one of them is on her what is not on her is what they are saying. Ever. No matter what it is.

I commented on morality as you brought it up again. That's it.

I will inform you though "daddy" is not only based in pedo culture. It's in a myriad of other fetishes that have nothing to do with anyone underage. The mass majority actually. Ive seen it used in exchange for master or dom before even. So yeah I understand if someone isn't as knowledgeable in the fetish world and the differences. But now you know.

As I said until something else comes to light that is actual proof coming out of Kats mouth or keyboard all anyone has is proof some members had a convo in her room.

 

[Alexandra Cole]

One cam girl I know well, will ban a member within seconds if they say anything out of line.

Yes, naughty boys deserve to be spanked.

Now if other cam girls choose to let their rooms run riot, that's on them.

Of course, most people would put the blame on the members themselves because they're grown adults, but I suppose if you view her as a mommy figure, she could be personally responsible for the behavior of all those errant schoolboys.

No judgment here.

 

[Azhrarn]

One cam girl I know well, will ban a member within seconds if they say anything out of line. Now if other cam girls choose to let their rooms run riot, that's on them.

Of course, most people would put the blame on the members themselves because they're grown adults, but I suppose if you view her as a mommy figure, she could be personally responsible for the behavior of all those errant schoolboys.

No judgment here.

Cam girls are responsible for their own chat rooms. Example: If you have an unauthorized person in your chat room (boyfriend, legal minor, another woman who hasn't submitted ID), you the cam girl are held responsible, not the other person. Similarly, when you have the ability to mute or ban any person in your chat room, but choose not to exercise that power, then yes, you are making yourself culpable for the speech/behavior of your members, especially when such speech/behavior would normally result in instantaneous bans anywhere else. If you want to pretend/believe otherwise that's your prerogative, but don't expect MFC to protect you if the sh*t hits the fan.

 

[JoleneBrody]

Errrrm... No. That's not how it works at all...

We have freedom to ban/ignore anyone for whatever reason but we do not have an obligation to censor or manage the members MFC provides to us, they drive the traffic, we are not responsible for who stumbles into our room. We just have the freedom and right to kick anyone out despite the fact that they are customers of the site.

I'm also certain I'm speaking to a brick wall just looking for drama fun funs on a boring day so mehhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[ItsBillyBitch]

Sometimes I’m a bad boy because I want special attention.

It’s a “mommy thing” and there is nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with the “daddy thing”.

Some people might be uncomfortable or even repulsed by it and that’s fine by me. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong or immoral for other consenting ADULTS who enjoy it.

 

[PunkInDrublic]

Cam girls are responsible for their own chat rooms. Example: If you have an unauthorized person in your chat room (boyfriend, legal minor, another woman who hasn't submitted ID), you the cam girl are held responsible, not the other person. Similarly, when you have the ability to mute or ban any person in your chat room, but choose not to exercise that power, then yes, you are making yourself culpable for the speech/behavior of your members, especially when such speech/behavior would normally result in instantaneous bans anywhere else. If you want to pretend/believe otherwise that's your prerogative, but don't expect MFC to protect you if the sh*t hits the fan.

They are responsible for the behavior they choose to allow but they aren't really to blame in any way for how others choose to act. Lack of animadversion for a certain behavior isn't an endorsement and it doesn't make them an enabler of this behavior either. And just because one model does it one way doesn't mean every other model wants to do it the same. Some might ban someone for something that others are completely cool with. Can't expect them to all follow the same code.

 

[JickyJuly]

Am I the only one whose brain yells "fuck yeah! I love Alexandra Cole!" while reading her posts? Every time.

 

[VeronicaChaos]

Cam girls are responsible for their own chat rooms. Example: If you have an unauthorized person in your chat room (boyfriend, legal minor, another woman who hasn't submitted ID), you the cam girl are held responsible, not the other person. Similarly, when you have the ability to mute or ban any person in your chat room, but choose not to exercise that power, then yes, you are making yourself culpable for the speech/behavior of your members, especially when such speech/behavior would normally result in instantaneous bans anywhere else. If you want to pretend/believe otherwise that's your prerogative, but don't expect MFC to protect you if the sh*t hits the fan.

They are responsible for the behavior they choose to allow but they aren't really to blame in any way for how others choose to act. Lack of animadversion for a certain behavior isn't an endorsement and it doesn't make them an enabler of this behavior either. And just because one model does it one way doesn't mean every other model wants to do it the same. Some might ban someone for something that others are completely cool with. Can't expect them to all follow the same code.

It can also vary a lot night to night. Sometimes I'll be really quick to ban what I consider offensive people, and sometimes I'm in a mood where I'm bored and find everything hilarious.

It's also really hard to tell what's going on in screenshots. Context is everything. Sometimes when I take a break and I come back to the room nothing makes any sense at all because the context of the conversation was lost. It made perfect sense at the time!

 

[PRISM]

So is the FBI really getting involved over the age play and jokes that were clearly jokes? Or is juju making it up to make it seem like she has more "power" to her hardcore fans? Katsumi seems like a pretty nice model, I don't think she should get in trouble over just some free speech.

 

[mynameisbob84]

So is the FBI really getting involved over the age play and jokes that were clearly jokes? Or is juju making it up to make it seem like she has more "power" to her hardcore fans? Katsumi seems like a pretty nice model, I don't think she should get in trouble over just some free speech.

I think if they have something like this referred to them, they pretty much have to investigate. I imagine it will be a very short investigation though, perhaps just one person looking at the facts and quickly concluding that no further investigation is warranted.

 

[PRISM]

So is the FBI really getting involved over the age play and jokes that were clearly jokes? Or is juju making it up to make it seem like she has more "power" to her hardcore fans? Katsumi seems like a pretty nice model, I don't think she should get in trouble over just some free speech.

I think if they have something like this referred to them, they pretty much have to investigate. I imagine it will be a very short investigation though, perhaps just one person looking at the facts and quickly concluding that no further investigation is warranted.

It would be ironic if they end up investigating juju for some kind of harrassment laws. The whole anti-MFC campaign is using children as an excuse to gain popularity. Children are always used to get fascist laws made that screw over adults.
Someone needs to send juju this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMpiL-JU4jM

 

[Azhrarn]

So is the FBI really getting involved over the age play and jokes that were clearly jokes? Or is juju making it up to make it seem like she has more "power" to her hardcore fans? Katsumi seems like a pretty nice model, I don't think she should get in trouble over just some free speech.

Prism, have you reviewed this thread? There was a child on camera, talking to a cam girl, during one of these library shows. So, yes, you can bet the FBI is going to investigate. I’m still trying to figure out why so many people on this forum seem to think there’s no consequences for anything they say or do. I’ve mentioned little things, like the fact that on any properly run forum, people would receive warnings for things like making posts containing nothing but smileys, or making posts just to tell someone else “Great post!” Then there’s the irony that quite a few cam girls, whose livelihoods depend upon their social skills and reputations, seem to be completely tone deaf (to put it mildly), and have no hesitation about trolling the members who collectively pay their salaries. But what I find most troubling, is this naive belief that cam girls can’t be held responsible for the behavior of the members in their chat rooms. It’s been repeatedly and widely remarked that MFC is extremely lax in terms of policing the chat rooms of cam girls. Seems to me that right there would be a huge red flag that a cam girl should have an attorney go through their contract with MFC with a fine tooth comb. There’s no such thing as free speech when it comes to pedophilia. As I started to say once before, in most contexts you’d be lucky if the only thing that happened was that you received a perma-ban. In this area, it’s not uncommon for forum admins to collect IP addresses and evidence and forward them to investigative organizations.

 

[PRISM]

There is still free speech when it comes to peadophilia,and any good site operator wouldn't report such people for making jokes about it. I don't get why you want people to go to prison for what they speak if they are not actually going to commit a crime.

 

[Gen]

Juju claimed to have spoken to the FBI, and that they were investigating, before the child was on camera, when it was just about Katsummi.

How Amber runs the forum or how camgirls interact with members here doesn't really have anything to do with any of that? I'm not sure what you're getting at with that part.

 

[PRISM]

Juju claimed to have spoken to the FBI, and that they were investigating, before the child was on camera, when it was just about Katsummi.

How Amber runs the forum or how camgirls interact with members here doesn't really have anything to do with any of that? I'm not sure what you're getting at with that part.

Amber is exempt from anything people say as long as she doesn't get involved in what the people say, its one reason why on really big forums the admins don't talk much so they don't extend liability to the site and themselves.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I’ve mentioned little things, like the fact that on any properly run forum, people would receive warnings for things like making posts containing nothing but smileys, or making posts just to tell someone else “Great post!” Then there’s the irony that quite a few cam girls, whose livelihoods depend upon their social skills and reputations, seem to be completely tone deaf (to put it mildly), and have no hesitation about trolling the members who collectively pay their salaries.

Perhaps you should go frequent those properly run forums more then?
Or perhaps I should put it this way... :icon-wink: :-? :icon-eek: :-o :icon-rolleyes: :naughty: :snooty: :whistle: :hello2: :angryfire: :argue: :binky: :bs: :confused2: :confused1: :confused4: :confused3: :confused5: :cussing: :cwm10: :cwm21: :director: :dink: :evil3: :withstupid: :scratch: :nono: ain10: rotest: :sleepy1: :stfu: :spam1: :thefinger: :tool: :violent3: :angry-boxing: :angry-cussingblack: :angry-devil: :angry-tappingfoot: :angry-steamingears: :angry-screaming: :character-cartman: :crying-yellow: :music-tool: :music-tool: :music-tool: :violence-ak47: :violence-axechase: :violence-blades: :violence-flak: :violence-fencing: :violence-glob: :violence-hammer: :violence-minigun: :violence-pistoldouble: :violence-ripper: :violence-rapidfire: :violence-rambo: :violence-sniperdark: