That ad needs to be taken down now. It's one thing to say someone is a slut in a post. It;'s another thing to blast it all over the message board.
TWW could get in a LOT of trouble for that ad, ie lawsuits over slander/libel, whatever it is in this case.
That, and it's just wrong. Give the idiot his money back and TAKE IT DOWN.

11/15/2002 1:11:30 PM

I think it is funny.

11/15/2002 1:16:33 PM

I think it should be taken down, also. I don't want to see naked chicks everytime I refresh

11/15/2002 1:24:12 PM

Dammit, I'm missing something cuz I'm a prem?

That's fucking hillarious

[Edited on November 15, 2002 at 1:30 PM. Reason : as]

11/15/2002 1:29:29 PM

saw it a second ago, but didnt click on it, b/c i had typed a nice response, etc.. but its not in the advertise section, so who knows!

11/15/2002 2:26:45 PM

youre an idiot. aaronburro

Quote :

"The Wolf Web may use any contributed content in any way deemed necessary. The Wolf Web reserves the right to delete, modify, reproduce, and/or distribute all content and information transmitted between the client (you) and the server (us). "

read your user agreement again and get off everyones nuts

they were dumb enough to post the pics in the first place, and i dont care if its one of your friends

stfu now

11/15/2002 2:31:23 PM

They put that fucking picture up on their Yahoo pr0n site, so why can't we just make an ad out of it?

BRING THE AD BACK

[Edited on November 15, 2002 at 3:22 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2002 3:15:51 PM

Quote :

"The Wolf Web may use any contributed content in any way deemed necessary. The Wolf Web reserves the right to delete, modify, reproduce, and/or distribute all content and information transmitted between the client (you) and the server (us). "

But IF, IF there is something slanderous there, I am confident that actual laws take precedence over TWW rules.

11/15/2002 3:22:34 PM

yeah thats intentional torts yo

[Edited on November 15, 2002 at 3:34 PM. Reason : aha]

11/15/2002 3:33:42 PM

STFU YUOR HONOR SHE POSTED TEX PIX HERSLEF 4 ALL 2 SEE THX BYE

11/15/2002 3:40:20 PM

there is no law that gives you the right to call someone a slut all over the internet. that is called slander! jeez, folks, the pics are of course public domain. calling someone a slut is NOT.

11/15/2002 4:27:14 PM

THanks for taking it down

11/15/2002 4:33:50 PM

It's only slander when it's false, dumbass.

11/15/2002 4:51:56 PM

whatever the case, it's beyond the good tastes of the public viewing and was taken down accordingly.

She didn't put that up there, therefore her rights were exceeded when someone else did.

11/15/2002 4:55:25 PM

Quote :

"it's beyond the good tastes of the public viewing"

um

the wolf web

k

11/15/2002 5:00:26 PM

Quote :

"She didn't put that up there, therefore her rights were exceeded when someone else did. "

if you address my statements, address all of it and don't take it out of context.

11/15/2002 5:09:15 PM

youre still not correct in your line of reasoning.

while annlove may be a seperate case, all the other pics were on the wolfweb and by the simple fact that they agreed to the user agreement by obtaining a screenname on here and posting them under said screenname, the implied powers of the wolfweb take over. Its called a contract.

Also, there is no identifying features to each picture, save for the jami ones, therefore there is no libel (which is what youre after, because its printed media and not spoken word in front of a third party, which is slander), because you could never prove whose they were.

11/15/2002 5:09:27 PM

dammit... I was just about to point out the difference between slander and libel.

11/15/2002 5:24:56 PM

it is still there samp

11/15/2002 5:33:33 PM

Quote :

"TWW could get in a LOT of trouble for that ad, ie lawsuits over slander/libel, whatever it is in this case. "

no one can sue

those people put those pictures of THEMSELVES in their OWN gallery.....therefore, it is open for anyone and everyone to do whatever the hell they want with it. if they dont want people distorting or adding crude things to their pictures, then they shouldnt have put them up in the first place

get some fuckin common sense aaronburro

11/15/2002 6:22:40 PM

THNKS CASS FOR REPEATING MY POST

11/15/2002 6:41:16 PM

I'm talking about the ad.

none of the individuals that were put on that ad gave permission to do so. Though they had put those pictures on tww, that doesn't mean that they should be advertised by individuals other than themselves. Therefore, it is illegal and very much in violation of their rights.

Not to mention beyond the bounds of good taste and courtesy to the general public... and yes the internet is public. Though pornography can be argued to be "freedom of speech".... in a very broad intrepretation, the permission to have these pictures on them were still not given or addressed by the said individuals.

Take them down please....

[Edited on November 15, 2002 at 8:15 PM. Reason : s]

11/15/2002 8:14:13 PM

you have no proof that those pictures are those of said individuals

why do you think most porn doesnt include the head shot?

11/15/2002 8:52:49 PM

TWW IS proof, threads created by and posted by these individuals claim these pictures and are put up there by the same individuals. CrazyJ and Joe (though I'm assuming) have these records on who put what pictures on TWW and used them.

One facial shot is a very CLEAR shot of an individual licking her breast. Another is of an individual in her bra and her face is in it. And those pictures that do not have their faces in them, threads and posts can be found where they themselves have confirmed that that is their body part(s).

There is my proof.

Most porn don't have headshots because headshots are not what most people want a close up of...

[Edited on November 15, 2002 at 9:05 PM. Reason : a]

11/15/2002 9:03:33 PM

that still doesnt insinuate that said individuals are the ones in the pictures if theres no face

i could go to a porn site and say that i have an 18 inch dick and post a picture of a big dick

as long as theres no face you cant tell if it is or not.....obviously i dont have an 18 inch dick becasue that would be ineffective as well as scary

but

since there is no face who would you be to argue otherwise.....

im not arguing with you here, just showing you that without the face, there is no proof


so NCSUJamis are the only ones that would have to go

we could just as easily have gone to a porn site to get pics of naked chicks and put them in the ad

no one would know the difference

11/15/2002 9:05:59 PM

but that's not the case here.

If anonymity could be protected, then yes you are right.

But almost a good majority of those that come to TWW regularly can identify most of them, and if the regulars can identify them, then that leaves them unfairly vulnerable to these ads that have no other specific purpose than to mock and degrade these individuals further than already done. In other words, there is an ad, but it's not selling anything, so there is no use for the ad but to mock and degrade.

I'd rather exercise caution than test the waters, besides, some of these individuals have learned their lesson, and I think the uncompassionate of tww have redefined the word overkill in this situation. To spend money just to place an ad like that is very cruel, and shows of a very twisted mind.

11/15/2002 9:18:01 PM

it doesnt matter who can recognize them

if this were EVER to go to court hahah

there would HAVE to be faces

or it would get thrown out

11/15/2002 9:21:40 PM

But there ARE faces though. . .

I could sit with the ad, if there were NO faces in it.

11/15/2002 9:23:06 PM

No one cared when Myrtle put users (without their permission) in her ads.

[Edited on November 15, 2002 at 9:23 PM. Reason : foo]

11/15/2002 9:23:11 PM

was it porn?

11/15/2002 9:49:31 PM

How do you find the ad? I wanna see it.

11/15/2002 10:25:19 PM

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=72932

11/15/2002 10:36:18 PM

Quote :

"One facial shot is a very CLEAR shot of an individual licking her breast. Another is of an individual in her bra and her face is in it. And those pictures that do not have their faces in them, threads and posts can be found where they themselves have confirmed that that is their body part(s)."

IF THEY DIDN'T WANT THEIR NAKED BODIES ON THE INTERNET THEY SHOULDNT HAVE PUT THEM ON HERE.

11/15/2002 11:37:37 PM

I'm not arguing whether or not they wanted them on there.

I'm arguing that those who used their pictures to be advertised did not have their permission, therefore it is illegal.

and aside from the legalities, it's just wrong.

11/15/2002 11:59:16 PM

it is not wrong. those pictures were released into the public domain and therefore became the property of whoever so chose to use them.

11/16/2002 12:48:08 AM

i love the way you guys act like you know what you're talking about

11/16/2002 12:57:56 AM

im pulling the shit out of my ass, but i still don't see anything wrong with it.

11/16/2002 12:59:38 AM

hell i'm taking a class on this shit now and i still have no clue what im talking about

11/16/2002 1:09:55 AM

i just want to know who that was with the full frontal. I know everyone else. and where was the ncst8babe pic of her boob with the sore on it? yum.

11/16/2002 3:36:31 AM

the issue here is NOT showing pictures of someone. The issue is showing pictures of someone and then using the word "slut" in reference to the picture, and therefor the person IN the picture. While normally, a company/entity is not responsible for the content of an ad they show, for example an ad for an item that turns out to be defective, a company/entity IS responsible for slanderous statements, such as calling someone a slut. I don't give a shit what your definition of slander/libel is, the word applies in this context. No organization has the right to sell an ad which blatantly calls a group of people sluts. Period.

Quote :

"It's only slander when it's false, dumbass."

You may believe AnnLove to be a slut, but that doesn't make her a slut.
I believe there to be a God, but that doesn't mean He exists.

To that end, I think that the background to the "Who made that ad???" thread should be restored to the original TWW background

[Edited on November 16, 2002 at 7:03 AM. Reason : ]

11/16/2002 6:59:25 AM

Quote :

"You may believe AnnLove to be a slut, but that doesn't make her a slut. I believe there to be a God, but that doesn't mean He exists."

But that doesnt stop people like you from telling everyone there is a god.

11/16/2002 10:31:56 AM

that's not relevant nice try though

11/16/2002 11:58:20 AM

what the fuck are you talking about?

11/16/2002 12:23:14 PM

Quote :

"THNKS CASS FOR REPEATING MY POST"

oops sorry Brian

and i agree with Kev.....no one gave 2 shits when Myrtle was running those ads about ENDContra, Jami, CarolinaGirl, etc......and there were some pretty mean ads running about them

aaronburro, you're still a fuckin moron....i dont know what rock you crawled out from under, but goddamn go back...you havent been here long enough to know that shit like this has happened before and if little shits like yourself would shut the fuck up, then things wouldnt get blown out of proportion. you ruin it for everyone......youre a fuckin tattle tale. i dont care if you dont agree with it, youre one person out of 6000 and you dont make the rules.

Quote :

"To that end, I think that the background to the "Who made that ad???" thread should be restored to the original TWW background"

and again, who gives a shit? if it bothers you, then DONT CLICK ON THE THREAD.....fuckin moron i swear

ya know what i'm going to do.....i'm going to make a thread talking about how much of a fuckin weiner aaronburro is and ya know what, no one's going to do anything about it......and aaronburro can pout and whine all he wants b/c no one really cares about him

11/16/2002 3:56:15 PM

Quote :

"No organization has the right to sell an ad which blatantly calls a group of people sluts."

Apparently the courts do not agree with you.

Fag.

11/16/2002 4:08:13 PM

"cock hungry teens" speaks for itself.

11/16/2002 4:10:14 PM

again, plz to identify the full frontal.

11/16/2002 4:58:05 PM

someone post the ad cuz i missed it

11/16/2002 10:16:09 PM

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=72932

[Edited on November 16, 2002 at 10:25 PM. Reason : link to the ad]

11/16/2002 10:23:33 PM

Quote :

"someone post the ad cuz i missed it"

i mean jesus christ there are links all over THIS THREAD to it. ALSO, you could click the fucking ADVERTISE link on the top

11/17/2002 12:56:02 AM