in case anyone notice

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by longnstrong, Jun 25, 2005.

  1. longnstrong

    longnstrong New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    in a female on earth
    Thursday June 23, 2005

    Internet censored, America just rolls over and farts
    Boing Boing | Submitted by: Rotten Staff
    "Amended Section 2257 recordkeeping regulations go into effect at midnight tonight. The federal law requires website owners to keep records documenting, among other things, that every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct is over the age of 18. In anticipation, porn sites and others that include adult content are preparing to make their sites compliant -- or taking them offline. Today, several sites in the Rotten.com family are going dark for that reason, including ratemyboner.com (like amihotornot for amateur snapshots of a particular male anatomical part in a particular state) and gapingmaw.com (which you could call an industrial-strength grossout blog). Section 2257 is ostensibly aimed at preventing the exploitation of minors in pornography. However, some free speech advocates argue it provides the conservative Bush administration with the power to silence other websites deemed offensive." [The regulations were promulgated by Alberto Gonzales, US Attorney General appointed by George Bush.]
    Read article...
     
  2. Jay the 1

    Jay the 1 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    poor poor porn sites.....but we need em :(
     
  3. Rose

    Rose Resident Sexy Grandma
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    6,823
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Dixie Land
    I'm sure we are not going to lose our legitimate porn sites. This is just to protect the children who are being exploited. Since internet porn is a face-less/ address-less/ cyberbusiness, the powers-that-be are making an attempt to keep it legal.
    I deplore child-porn, and I am glad to see them trying to curb its availability, Even if it seems our free speech rights are being compromised. (jmho)
     
  4. kbate

    kbate New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    1
    This has nothing to do with child porn or protecting children at all. The entire intent of this rule change is to force porn site operators to keep records which are impossible to keep.

    The ruling creates a presumption of guilt, and will force any porn operator off line who cannot provide age verification of every picture on his site. Free sites typically do not have any way of verifying the age of the models, only the content providers themselves can provide such information.

    This is about shutting down the entire internet porn industry by creating an environment in which any U.S. based server may be seized and shut down due to imcomplete records, whether any of the models are underage or not.
     
  5. Rose

    Rose Resident Sexy Grandma
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    6,823
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Dixie Land
    I believe time will prove otherwise. The porn industry will be around probably long after we're dead & gone. I reiterate that ANY attempt to get rid of child endangerment is worth a little ripple in the legitimate industry. - and really that's all the effect this will have: a little, inconvenient ripple.
    (and I reiterate: jmho)
     
    #5 Rose, Jun 26, 2005
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2005
  6. longnstrong

    longnstrong New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    in a female on earth
    no i dont think you are right rose. the gov't, both dem's and repub's, want to get rid of porn, they wouldn't care if the way the law is written would cause the industry to be weighted down by paper work. the way the law is now from what i understand is that for every picture you have to have documentation. even if the person in the picture is 60 years old. even if the person in the picture was already documented as an adult.

    the law before this was already good enough it made the origanal website responsible for proving that the model was not a minor. and it also made so that the government had to prove the person guilty not the person had to prove that he was innocent.

    this is not a ripple they are a number of small sites that are going to be going down because of this and a number of large sites that are not going to grow and will shrink cause they can't use some of their older pictures.

    and a lot of models are affraid to give thier personal info to the sites because that will make it a lot more easier for stockers to find them.

    this marks an end to true ameture porn because you can't simply put a picture of your penis on a website any more.

    this could also give the government the ability to shut down a site showing pictures of something like abu grab, if they wanted too, not that they would.

    good news is some site are fighting back and have won some more time.

    i dont think i am that much of a porn freak, but i do think that the porn community should be given more respect. like it or not they, and gamers, are a major reason why your computer has dsl, DVD, media players, gigabite memory, etc...
     
  7. Thorn

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,151
    Likes Received:
    3
    I don't really care if it "hurts" the porn industry somewhat. I don't think it will be enforced to the "T" either. I see it similar to the way the NRA say's the Government wants to take our hunting riffles and shotguns away. When all they really want to do is make the world a safer place
     
  8. kbate

    kbate New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    1

    You should study the laws a little more, this is about giving the government the ability to shut down and prosecute with the onus to prove innocence being put on the porn operator. They won't be charging people with "child porn" they will be citing record keeping infractions and will fine the site operators out of business, Do you really think the Bush people intend to NOT use an anti-porn ruling to their maximum advantage?

    You would need to actually know what the NRA is actually doing before making that post make sense. The U.S. Constitution allowscitizens to own weapons, because in a free country the government should have nothing to fear from the citizenry, and the citizens should not fear the government.
    Taking guns away from law abiding citizens in no way and in no place has ever hindered a criminal, nor has it ever prevented violence. The intent of gun control law is not to make society safer for the citizens, it is to make the citizens more controllable (why else are the loudest advocates of gun bans also the politicians on the extreme socialist left).
     
  9. longnstrong

    longnstrong New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    in a female on earth
    the difference between porn and guns is that their are politicians that will fight for the NRA, theirs is not one politician that will fight for porn.

    the only other time you a person has to prove his innocences in the U.S. is tax evasion.
     
    #9 longnstrong, Jun 26, 2005
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2005
  10. Thorn

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,151
    Likes Received:
    3
    Like Allen Jackson says, "I'm not a real political man." Good of bad, it's true. - Since the law has passed and will go into effect soon we'll have to see what effect it has on the industry and how it is enforced. The courts could get involver if people convince them that it may be unfair and unconstitutional. :toast
     
  11. longnstrong

    longnstrong New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    in a female on earth
    i think kbate might be better inform then i'am about this but here is a site i get some of my info from.here is one of the places i get my info from
    i have seen sites that have been effected by this, and i am almost postive that there have been almost no sites that have had pictures of children having sex, on it. i only remember one site being busted for child porn. this law was not needed and if you notice no one heard about this law nor was there any debate about in washington.
     
  12. Rose

    Rose Resident Sexy Grandma
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    6,823
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Dixie Land
    I know I'm relatively new here, so if being a law student is a pre-requisite to participating in this thread by adding an opinion, thought or idea , then I will graciously back out of the discussion...

    That said, (with tongue-in-cheek ;) ) - as I understand it's writing, the law states that the ones responsible for proving that the model/actor is of age, are those either primarily or secondarily responsible in the hiring, contractual portion of the pic/video:

    (4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to
    the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to
    the following:
    (i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously
    existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no
    other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing,
    and video duplicators;
    (ii) Mere distribution;
    (iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in
    paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the
    hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the
    participation of the depicted performers;
    (iv) A provider of web-hosting services who does not, and
    reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer
    site or service; or
    (v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote
    computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the
    sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.


    And LongNstrong - you most cerainly may still post a pic of your genitalia, as long as you have documentation to prove you are at least 18 years old. (But don't do it on Ryan's site!!! ;) )
     
  13. longnstrong

    longnstrong New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    in a female on earth
    dear Rose,

    i am not exactly sure what that paragraph says, i think it list the exceptions. but i do know that the porn industry is fighting it and i have seen 4 sites effected by this law, and it has made them alot more boring. but what i really dont like about the law it that it is being enforce right now and it hasnt gotten any attention from the press. and most people havent even heard of the law. and from what it seem the documention need to post on the net sounds more complicated then just showing them your driver licenses.
     
  14. Rose

    Rose Resident Sexy Grandma
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    6,823
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Dixie Land
    LOL! I hear ya', L&S! All this 'legal-ese" is hard for us regular folks to figure out. I guess that's why I preface it with "If I understand it's writing..."
    Actually, it has been in Commission studies and many of the details worked out, came from these studies. They adopted some of the comments as part of the amendment, and declined to adopt others, and gave their "judicial' reasonings in their report.

    And you are right, most of us are informed after the fact. Thank goodness some were aware and ready.

    Only time will tell the full ramifications of the law.
     
  15. Thorn

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,151
    Likes Received:
    3
    Every business and industry has regulations and documentation that the law forces them to keep. And I'm sure they all hate it with a passion but they do it. I'm a small contractor, I hate all that stuff (even though Rose does it for me :D ) I'm sure the new regulations will hurt some sites in the short run and make it a little harder for some surfers to find what they want on porn sites. In the long run, I don't know? We'll all have to wait and see. :ugh
     
  16. longnstrong

    longnstrong New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    in a female on earth
    Alright I have read everything over again I and I now understand what is going on better. Here is the deal the new law isn’t really a child porn law it is more of a document law. In that you are not going to be going to prison for having child porn you are going to be going to prison for not having the document. So pretty much every thing on the net right now is child porn until proven other wise. If they investigate a site and the site doesn’t have the documents at that time the web master will can go to prison and/or at the least pay a $5,000 fine, and the site will go down. Even if the model is proven not to be underage later, they can still go to prison, cause they broke the law of not having documents. That is what everyone is worried about if they make a mistake and put up a picture and loose the documents they can go to prison. so it would be kind of like forgeting to bring you driver license and being pulled over, and for that you going to have to spend 3 years in prison and $5,000.
    That also means that you can be arrested for having the Paris Hilton video on your site because you don’t have her driver license or birth certificate, even though everyone knows how old she is.

    I cant figure out why they would need a law like this anyway. Before this the people who needed to have the documents were the studio that took the pictures. The studio would sell them to a website and other website would buy/steal the pictures from that site and use it on theirs. If an investigator wanted to know the age of the model then they would ask where that website got the picture from and go backwards until they got to the studio that had the documents. Now every site that post the pictures has to have documentation cause the government changed the definition of secondary sites. And apparently they also want the sites to keep everything that they ever posted on their sites in their records. The only other time people are treated this way is when you are accused of not paying your taxes, they don’t consider everyone to be murders, drug dealers, or rapist. Why must these people prove their innocence.

    Sorry some of the things that I mention in the other posts I made might not be that accurate because I can not find where I got that information so I might have been wrong.
     
  17. Thorn

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,151
    Likes Received:
    3
    From your first paragraph it sounds like a person that owns one of these businesses has to be a responsible business man or woman. Just like I have to (among other things) have a copy of a form filled out and signed that shows that each person that works for my business is a legal citizen of this country or has the proper documents allowing them to work in this country. If they check my company (all of 3 people right now) and I don't have these forms on my employees there are various penalties that I could face depending on the severity of the case.

    OK, if you are accurate in the second paragraph of your post I have to admit that the law does sound a little ridicules to say the least. It would be like requiring a grocery store owner to have copies of scientific studies to back up every claim on every label on every product they sell in their stories instead of getting after the producer of the products first.

    From what someone told me they read about that new law, "You are not considered a producer if you are not involved in the hiring, contracting, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers." But I am not a lawyer and I know one almost has to be one or at least study law to understand the wording within the writing of a law.

    BTW, I can appreciate your honesty at the end of your post. :toast
     
  18. Rose

    Rose Resident Sexy Grandma
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    6,823
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Dixie Land
    I think the confusion can be found in trying to identify where a site might fall within the bold-typed categories. Geez! To be sure, one would need a basketful of lawyers! The "...DUPLICATES, REPRODUCES,OR REISSUES A BOOK,......blah blah blah" sends up a little red flag! :uhh: I've certainly learned a lot from the research:

    (1) A primary producer is any person who actually films,….
    2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer- manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the
    sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

    (3) The same person may be both a primary and a secondary producer.
    (4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:
    (i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing, and video duplicators;
    (ii) Mere distribution;
    (iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in
    paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers;

    (iv) A provider of web-hosting services who does not, and
    reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service; or
    (v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.
     
  19. longnstrong

    longnstrong New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    in a female on earth
    simply put
    simply put

    dont get me wrong rose i can understand legal documents sometimes but my brain cells start to liquify, and i might draw the wrong conclusion.
     
  20. Rose

    Rose Resident Sexy Grandma
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    6,823
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Dixie Land
    I truly hope my comments didn't sound offensive. Sometimes, cyber-conversations can be misunderstood. I totally respect your opinion, and you may be SO right, and I may be SO wrong! LOL - I am learning a lot, though. I have trouble understanding legal documents, for sure! This has been a good thread, and I've enjoyed doing the research about it.

    To be sure, the Free Speech Coalition (the Adult Industy's trade association) was on top of this way before any of us pee-ons knew about it. They submitted a 23-page document, outlining concerns surrounding the proposed (at that time) amended regulation. Some of these concerns were legitimized and addressed before the final drafting of the law.

    As with most new regulations, special interest groups may tend to take a 'worse case scenario' approach to the law. Because of that, sometimes, people get afraid that some giant blanket shut-down of the effected industry will take place. Some myths begin to circulate, taking portions of the regulation out of context. We hear or read someones speculation, and it somehow takes on the appearance of fact.
    I suppose I'm the idealist here. I still believe that the Adult Entertainment industry will experience a ripple, at most. The sites that I am signed up on are still operational, and I don't see any noticable change in content or availablity. Only time will tell.