Free guestbook - The Handprints Spanking Art & Stories Guestbook - 123Guestbook.com

Please post comments relevant to the Handprints site.
Your childhood discipline memories are welcome.
Please DON'T post PHOTOS of juvenile spankings, LINKS to sites with such photos, or descriptions of spankings you gave your real life children.

4:02am 07-09-2022 Roger: Does anybody know what happened to thespanking.club. Can’t seem to access it

1:01pm 06-29-2022 Dennis: Hi die Bilder von 225 sind super schön obwohl die kleine Maus eher den holzloffel versohlt werden kann nicht mit der Bürste

7:30pm 06-21-2022 stripey7: Homepage url
https://fetlife.com/users/33601; A riddle: How is a naughty girl like an alcoholic?

Answer: There's no improvement until you've hit bottom!

3:21pm 06-20-2022 James: Every one should go check out the website copykats gave has cool video, pictures, audio and all free.

1:09am 06-20-2022 HandPrince: Homepage url
http://thehandprints.com; Thank you for sharing the legal discussion below, Haroun.

I'm not a lawyer but I believe that no Handprints image meets the three prong Miller test for obscenity.

1. None appeal to the prurient interest of the average person.
2. None depict sexual conduct.
3. All have redeeming artistic value.

To qualify as "obscene," an image must meet all three of the above criteria. Handprints images meet none.

1:26pm 06-18-2022 Haroun Maurer: United States
Main article: Child pornography laws in the United States
1973–2002
In the United States, pornography is generally protected as a form of personal expression, and thus governed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Where pornography ceases to be protected expression is when it fails the Miller obscenity test, as the Supreme Court of the United States held in 1973 in Miller v. California. Another case, New York v. Ferber (1982), held that if pornography depicts real child abuse or a real child victim, as a result of photographing a live performance for instance, then it is not protected speech (regardless of whether the material is obscene under the test).

In 1996, U.S. Congress introduced the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) to update the types of pornographic media featuring minors considered illegal under U.S. federal law. In 2002, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition that two provisions of the CPPA were facially invalid due to being overbroad in banning materials that are neither obscene under Miller, nor produced via the exploitation of real children as in Ferber. In doing so, the case also reaffirmed Ferber while acknowledging the state of things under Miller.

2003: PROTECT Act
In response to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, Congress passed the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the Amber Alert Law) which was signed into law on April 30, 2003, by President George W. Bush.[114] The PROTECT Act adjusted its language to meet the parameters of the Miller, Ferber, and Ashcroft decisions. The Act was careful to separate cases of virtual pornography depicting minors into two different categories of law: Child pornography law and obscenity law. In regards to child pornography law, the Act modified the previous wording of "appears to be a minor" with "indistinguishable from that of a minor" phrasing. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults."[115][116][117][118] Furthermore, there exists an affirmative defense to a child pornography charge that applies if the depiction was of a real person and the real person was an adult (18 or over) at the time the visual depiction was created, or if the visual depiction did not involve any actual minors (see subsection "c", parts 1 and 2, of 18 U.S.C. 2252A).[115] This affirmative defense does not apply to child pornography created via morphing, namely depictions "created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct (see section (8)(c) of 18 U.S.C. 2256).[119]

The PROTECT Act also enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A into U.S. obscenity law:[120]

"Section 1466A of Title 18, United States Code, makes it illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and are deemed obscene."

Thus, virtual and drawn pornographic depictions of minors may still be found illegal under U.S. federal obscenity law. The obscenity law further states in section C "It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist."

Laws governing non-child pornography are guided by the Miller standard, a three-prong test used by courts to dictate obscenity according to the "average person's" point of view of the standards of the community as well as state law. The parts follow: "appeals to prurient interests", "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct" as described by law, and "taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Materials that fall within all three prongs may be declared obscene in a court of law.[121][122]

By the statute's own terms, the law does not make all fictional child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value. The mere possession of said images is not a violation of the law unless it can be proven that they were transmitted through a common carrier, such as the mail or the Internet, transported across state lines, or of an amount that showed intent to distribute.[123] There is also an affirmative defense made for possession of no more than two images with "reasonable steps to destroy" the images or reporting and turning over the images to law enforcement.[124]

The first major case occurred in December 2005, when Dwight Whorley was convicted in Richmond, Virginia under 18 U.S.C. 1466A for using a Virginia Employment Commission computer to receive and distribute "obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males".[125][126][127] On December 18, 2008, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, consisting of 20 years' imprisonment.[128] Whorley appealed to the Supreme Court, but was denied cert.[129][130][131]

2008–present
"18 U.S.C. § 1466A" has been met with legal challenges regarding its modifications to obscenity law. In particular, the provisions of the law that establish an alternate obscenity test to the Miller standard have been challenged. In October 2008, a 38-year-old Iowa comic collector named Christopher Handley was prosecuted for possession of explicit lolicon manga. The judge ruled that two parts of the act that were broader than the Miller standard, 1466A a(2) and b(2), were unconstitutionally overbroad as applied specifically to this case, but Handley still faced an obscenity charge.[132][133] Handley was convicted in May 2009 as the result of entering a guilty plea bargain at the recommendation of his attorney, under the belief that the jury chosen to judge him would not acquit him of the obscenity charges if they were shown the images in question.[134]

A later ruling in United States v. Dean (2011) called the overbreadth ruling into question because the Handley case failed to prove that 1466A a(2) and b(2) were substantially overbroad on their face; Dean was convicted under the sections previously deemed unconstitutional due to the fact that the overbroadth claim in Handley was an as-applied overbroadth challenge, and was therefore limited to the facts and circumstances of that case,[135] whereas in Dean the defendant was charged under 1466A a(2) for possession of material constituting actual child pornography, which does not require a finding of obscenity,[136][137] and was read to fall within the language of the relevant statute. The facts of this case precluded Dean from satisfying the substantive due process requirements to satisfy a proper facial challenge against the relevant statutes.[138]

At the state level, some states have laws that explicitly prohibit cartoon pornography and similar depictions, while others have only vague laws on such content. In California such depictions specifically do not fall under state child pornography laws, while in Utah they are explicitly banned.[139][140] However, there are legal arguments that state laws criminalizing such works are invalid in the wake of Ashcroft, and some judges have rejected these laws on constitutional grounds.[141] Accordingly, the Illinois Supreme Court in 2003 ruled that a statute criminalizing virtual child pornography was unconstitutional per the ruling in Ashcroft.[142] On a federal level, works depicting minors that offend contemporary community standards and are "patently offensive" while lacking "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"—that is, found to be "obscene" in a court of law—continue to stand as illegal, but only if the conditions for obscenity discussed above are met: mere possession of these works continues to be legal. Legal professor Reza Banakar has since stated that "serious artistic value" is very difficult to evaluate, and that the legal task of evaluating the lack of such value cannot be executed objectively.[143]

Due to the fact that obscenity is determined by a sitting judge or jury in reference to local standards and definitions on a state-by-state, case-by-case basis, the legality of drawn or fictitious pornography depicting minors is left in a 'gray area', much like other forms of alternative pornography. Some states pay less mind to the contents of such materials and determine obscenity based on time and place an offense may occur, while others may have strict, well-defined standards for what a community may be allowed to find appropriate. Others only may have vague laws or definitions which are only used to allow the government to prosecute recidivist offenders on both a federal and state level.[144]

5:55pm 06-16-2022 CopyKats: Hi all, if you're interested in more of my art, I have a gallery here: https://spankingart.org/wiki/CopyKats and a couple of albums in here: https://thespanking.club
You would have to join the spanking club to see the albums. And yes, I've posted a couple of other animations there as well (not as good as Zoe, because they're difficult to do - most of them are also silent, because getting realistic speaking/crying is really problematic).

12:16pm 06-13-2022 LBK: Does CopyKats have a Patreon or Fanbox or anything?

{HandPrince replies: See above.}

6:23pm 06-10-2022 Asa Jones: Homepage url
Spanking-emporium.co.uk; A lovely site. You have put a great deal of work in to it. Easy to navigate. My favourites are Churchward and jay em.

Asa

p.s. I may send some of my art....

10:12pm 06-09-2022 Cuckoo: A 10-hour long spanking.

9:45pm 06-06-2022 gregw777: I noticed that the 50 images in gallery 255 re the same as the last update Not new images??

{HandPrince replies: The bottom 29 images in Gallery #255 are new.}

11:01am 06-06-2022 Bill: Very much enjoyed the excellent animation of Zoe's time on the spanking machine. However, it seems a shame to deprive her father of the pleasure of spanking her cute bottom himself.

4:03pm 06-05-2022 Keith Browne: I totally agree with the comments about the CopyKats animation! Would love to see more

10:43pm 06-04-2022 gregw777: CopyKats vid is excellent hope to see more

8:56am 06-04-2022 SpanknTch: I have always liked your site. That animation from CopyKats is really good. I hope to see more like it.

Messages: 181 until 195 of 608.
Number of pages: 41
Newer 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 Older

This free guestbook is brought to you by: 123Guestbook.com