REDDIT RIDS IT - EBAY HAS NOT

This website would LOVE to report that EBAY has done what REDDIT just did.

The CEO at Reddit is a woman. Her name is Ellen Pao. Her statement: "No matter who you are, if a photograph, video, or digital image of you in a state of nudity, sexual excitement, or engaged in any act of sexual conduct, is posted or linked to on Reddit without your permission, it is prohibited on Reddit." 

How about FEDERAL LAW, too. Shouldn't all websites obey it? 

Title 18, Sections 2257 and 2257A: all models, actors, actresses, performers and/or other persons who appear in any visual depiction or “sexually explicit conduct” (as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. §2256). 

Sellers MUST have a signed model release stating age and consent. Professional porn (Hustler, Playboy, Vivid Video etc.) all have this material on file, and say so. And yet EBAY allows any parasitic pervert to Photoshop images of stars, or dupe stolen/hacked nude photos, and sell them...WITHOUT A SIGNED AGREEMENT OF AGE AND CONSENT. Isn't that just plain AGAINST THE LAW? 

Raping Patricia Arquette Turns EBAY bidders on

While Patricia Arquette was clutching her Oscar, and demanding equal rights for women, for EBAY SELLERS it was business as usual.

EBAY is where they sell Patricia Arquette topless, with a gun to her head. This doesn't fall under the EBAY "Offensive Materials" rules, or rules against selling stolen property?

Yes, two sellers offering the same item. There's no honor among thieves.

EBAY smugly insists, "It's up to Arquette to find these images on our sneaky, hidden "adults only" section of our site, and then send a complaint to vero@ebay.com"

But aren't these images in violation of FEDERAL LAW?

Title 18, Sections 2257 and 2257A: all models, actors, actresses, performers and/or other persons who appear in any visual depiction or “sexually explicit conduct” (as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. §2256). 

Sellers MUST have a signed model release stating age and consent. Where, next to these images is Arquette's signature on a document stating she has agreed to the sales of the photos, and that the photos are compliant with Title 18, Sections 2257 and 2257a of Federal Law? Where is the document from the film company saying they've give these parasites the rights to make a profit over screencaps from the movie? 

EBAY hasn't answered the question of why they don't obey Federal  Law.

Desperate to Humiliate TAYLOR SWIFT with Photoshop Porn Images

What can you say about an EBAY seller who is desperately intent on abusing and visually raping Taylor Swift? To hide items from her VeRO rep, THIS seller spells her name TAYLER, and spaces out her name so it won't show up in a search. But any pervert, stalker and potential rapist who checks this seller's list of women will find the images.

What solves this problem? 

EBAY should add "celebrity fantasy" and "celebrity nude" images to their "offensive material" list. This junk should be BANNED the same way material abusive to blacks and Jews can not be posted. Anyone can report a KKK or Nazi item, or a "fantasy image" of a Jew being tortured or a black being lynched. 

EBAY should obey the law when it comes to sellers offering adult material WITHOUT having "age and consent" form on file.

Title 18, Sections 2257 and 2257A: all models, actors, actresses, performers and/or other persons who appear in any visual depiction or “sexually explicit conduct” (as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. §2256). 

Sellers MUST have a signed model release stating age and consent. Hustler wouldn't dare print pictures like this, but EBAY sells them!

Where, next to these images of Swift, is her signature on a document stating she has agreed to the sales of the photos, and that the photos are compliant with Title 18, Sections 2257 and 2257a of Federal Law? 

The ad copy on these Taylor Swift frauds calls each photo "a parody." Ha ha. Except "parody" is not acceptable if it violates rules on sexually explicit photos, or photos that involve stolen property or underage women. Exploiting a woman without her consent is NOT PARODY.  

Read on, and see other examples, as well as the laws that EBAY is currently ignoring.