This is the least of their problems and I am amazed none of their executives is not yet in jail:
"The children selling explicit videos on OnlyFans"
"The children selling explicit videos on OnlyFans"
The anti-vice authoritarians will always come after any lucrative porn enterprise with these sensationalized stories. I'm surprised there are still people out there that eat it up.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/the-child-protection-and-o...
Try to use the excuse under a judge that the children are the ones fooling your obvious flawed registration system to see how that will go.
WHOA! That's not true.
At least one of her fellow "actors" went to jail for it and I think some of the staff only avoided jail by cutting plea bargains but still wound up with felonies.
There is a reason why so many people were angry when Traci Lords started getting "legitimate" roles after having destroyed a lot of people's lives.
Child porn is a strict liability crime in most cases of the US. Yeah, the justice system generally applies some common sense (ie. not convicting two 16 year olds sending each other selfies), but that is completely at the whim of the system and doesn't always hold true.
>Our reading of the relevant Supreme Court opinions, particularly Smith v. California, suggests that the first amendment does not permit the imposition of criminal sanctions on the basis of strict liability where doing so would seriously chill protected speech. While Congress may take steps to punish severely those who knowingly subject minors to sexual exploitation, and even those who commit such abuse recklessly or negligently, it may not impose very serious criminal sanctions on those who have diligently investigated the matter and formed a reasonable good-faith belief that they are engaged in activities protected by the first amendment.
[1]https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/858...
> Gottesman was found guilty of violating the 1977 Child Sexual Exploitation Act, but appealed the lower court verdict all the way to U. S. Supreme Court, claiming that he should not be held liable for using underage girls if they lied about their age.
Yet this is also commented from 2011:
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/a-short-history-of-undera...
> No one, including Lords or her scene partners, ever went to jail over the scandal, but it led to several court cases and tougher laws regulating the adult industry.
"Never went to jail" does not exclude "Cut a deal but still wound up with a felony conviction". However, apparently my memory was faulty about someone going to jail.
Unfortunately, everything about the case is old enough that it doesn't appear well in search engines. And that's without the fact that everything is going to be drowned out in search engines by being proximate to "traci lords".
Why would the BBC or the police be worthy of trust? It’s ironic to trust their word when the article goes over the ways the site tries to verify identity and hence age, and they seem reasonable, far more reasonable than trusting the police because they’re the police.
I’m not going to post up my passport but I didn’t come down in the last shower.
======================
Schools have shared anonymous reports of pupils using the site, including a 16-year-old who boasted to her careers adviser about the amount of money she made on the site, and showed off her "exuberant" spending on Instagram.
Underage creators and users of the site include victims of prior sexual abuse and those with mental health issues and suicidal thoughts, according to Childline counsellor notes. UK police forces say children have complained about their images being uploaded to the site without consent, and one 17-year-old reported being blackmailed.
Missing children are appearing in OnlyFans videos, according to a US watchdog, which also says it has received reports of child sexual exploitation.
"It is increasingly clear that OnlyFans is being used by children," says chief constable Simon Bailey, the UK's child protection lead.
"The company is not doing enough to put in place the safeguards that prevent children exploiting the opportunity to generate money, but also for children to be exploited."
In a statement, OnlyFans says it could not respond specifically to the anonymous reports we were told about without the account details.
======================
Claims about this "damaging" them seem about as speculative as 1960s claims that homosexual behaviour is damaging.
While the idea of a six year old uploading naked pics makes me extremely uncomfortable I think that's a parenting issue (something has probably gone very wrong and that's what needs fixing, not the symptom of posting online), not something to be governed at the payment processor level.
What happens when X or Y minority group claims the test is biased against them?
Also your claim is that an intelligent person who could perform well on an examination wouldn't also make risky sexual decisions when they are young?
Good question. Perhaps a more in-depth analysis of the person would be required to understand why they are not passing the test.
What happens when X or Y minority group claims the test is biased against them?
This is an existing pattern and I would defer to the legal system to mirror the existing processes. This pattern is replete throughout all intersections of society and government.
Also your claim is that an intelligent person who could perform well on an examination wouldn't also make risky sexual decisions when they are young?
I never said intelligent. I said "if a person is mentally competent to make legal, financial, contractual and overall life decisions". These things are not directly tied to intelligence alone and intelligence can be interpreted to mean many different things. The test would be written and reviewed yearly by clinical psychologists, biologists and lawyers. The current process for this that already exists depends entirely on a judge which is just a more experienced lawyer and a single persons judgement call that may be biased by their personal beliefs. I believe my suggestion would be a vast improvement over the existing system and would make it easier for kids put into precarious situations to move forward in life rather than sitting in emergency foster care at the mercy of strangers if they don't actually require it.
I personally know of a few people including a close friend that went through this process. She was declared an adult at age 14 and was appointed guardianship over her brother as the legal guardian with full custody. She handled this perfectly but all of this was the decision of a single judge. This is of course not the same as legally being at the age of majority/consent. In my method, there would be certifications for different aspects of responsibility much like endorsements for a car or aircraft license. These would be endorsements on their state ID.
The reality of course though is that not every child has a responsible parent, and many children have parents who would happily exploit their children to make a couple thousand extra dollars (which really sucks, but it's also just how the world is). So as a general legal policy, putting the burden on parents may lead to substantially more harm of children.
However those sites now all have strong 230 compliance regimes, and I gather OnlyFans doesn't. OnlyFans could have implemented something similar. PornHub went down that route when confronted with similar pressure - they got of rid of all video's that went compliant. But OnlyFans.com have chosen not to. I wonder why?