Verizon defends decision to offer incest and child themed porn on video-on-demand (legal, lawyers)

[weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by LynnHarris

This is so sad. What a company will do in the name of money.

The children in these videos need to be rescued and protected.

Verizon defends decision to offer incest and child themed porn on video-on-demand | Fox News

What children?
Name one of the movies with children in it.

[Driller1]

Originally Posted by weltschmerz

What does that have to do with anything? You think it will be in the lineup?

NO.....I will type real slow.....

I said "if" because at one time there WAS said to be a "snuff" film that was said to be real.

I have not seen ID for the actors.....so I really do not KNOW there age.

[weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by Driller1

NO.....I will type real slow.....

I said "if" because at one time there WAS said to be a "snuff" film that was said to be real.

I have not seen ID for the actors.....so I really do not KNOW there age.

And again (typing even slower)...what does this 'snuff film' have to do with anything?

[Driller1]

Originally Posted by weltschmerz

And again (typing even slower)...what does this 'snuff film' have to do with anything?

Nothing.....I qualified my statement because at one time a "snuff" film was said to be true.

[Rapaport]

Did you really think that Verizon was going to show child pornography, illegal in all 50 states??? Rotfl

Originally Posted by LynnHarris

This is so sad. What a company will do in the name of money.

The children in these videos need to be rescued and protected.

Verizon defends decision to offer incest and child themed porn on video-on-demand | Fox News

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by LynnHarris

The children in these videos need to be rescued and protected.

I hate to break this to you, but porn producers have been known to make up misleading titles.

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by Driller1

NO.....I will type real slow.....

I said "if" because at one time there WAS said to be a "snuff" film that was said to be real.

I have not seen ID for the actors.....so I really do not KNOW there age.

Porn flicks that are commercially distributed all have to have full evidence of age for all performers. Every film is required to include a viable address where those files can be requested by any viewer who wants to see them.

For sure, Verizon is not going to show any film that does not have this disclaimer. Showing any actual provable incest or child molestation would be both disastrous and illegal.

This is nothing but more Fox dog-whistling BS. Fox already knew all about the legal disclaimer, as they, too would have to use it if they were to ever run a substantial clip of a porn movie on air. Even when the actors have all their clothes on and are doing nothing sexual at all.

[theunbrainwashed]

Thread fail. OP doesn't know the meaning between child porn and child themed porn. Keyword: THEMED. Ergo, the "child" was portrayed by a performer 18+. No different than a "high school" movie that portrays "underage" kids having sex (when in reality, both the performers are usually in their 20s)

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by LynnHarris

The children in these videos need to be rescued and protected.

These are apparently fantasy films with paid "actors", no underage kids, nothing illegal. If you don't like their decision vote with your wallet.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Driller1

If it is just the THEME and no minors were IN the film....I agree with Verizon.

I completely disagree. The Supreme Court has ruled that even cartoons despicting children are illegal and considered child porn, so saying that an actor is a child, even if not, shouldnt be any better.