Fuckin censorship

[akarunway 1]

THIS GOVERNMENT IS GETTING OUT OF CONTROL From one of my fav porn sites today: 18 USC 2257
Due to new government regulations RateMyCamelToe.com will be unable to display nude cameltoes for the time being. These new regulations will have a wide spread effect on the adult industry and the Internet. We hope that we will be able to display them again in the near future. Please stay tuned for further changes. Enjoy the clothed toes.

You can read more about about these new regulations here: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/po/20050622/co_po/newpolicythreatensadultwebcontent

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[EricTheRed 0]

That's just wrong

(the fact that you have a camel toe web site bookmarked is also disturbing...)

illegible usually

[n23x 0]

Jesus Christ you had me scared there for a minute.

But my porno links seem to work just fine.

Have a link to what this government regulation is/entails?

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[akarunway 1]

I guess Bush and the moral majority are going to TRY to start ammending and enforcing an old law under the guise of stopping > child porn( hang them bastards by the balls) on the net. US CODE COLLECTION

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2257 Prev | Next

§ 2257. Record keeping requirements


Release date: 2004-08-06

(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which—
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.
(b) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall, with respect to every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct—
(1) ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer’s name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations;
(2) ascertain any name, other than the performer’s present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name; and
(3) record in the records required by subsection (a) the information required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection and such other identifying information as may be prescribed by regulation.
(c) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall maintain the records required by this section at his business premises, or at such other place as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe and shall make such records available to the Attorney General for inspection at all reasonable times.
(d)
(1) No information or evidence obtained from records required to be created or maintained by this section shall, except as provided in this section, directly or indirectly, be used as evidence against any person with respect to any violation of law.
(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not preclude the use of such information or evidence in a prosecution or other action for a violation of this section or for a violation of any applicable provision of law with respect to the furnishing of false information.
(e)
(1) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall cause to be affixed to every copy of any matter described in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section, in such manner and in such form as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe, a statement describing where the records required by this section with respect to all performers depicted in that copy of the matter may be located.
(2) If the person to whom subsection (a) of this section applies is an organization the statement required by this subsection shall include the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization responsible for maintaining the records required by this section.
(f) It shall be unlawful—
(1) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies to fail to create or maintain the records as required by subsections (a) and (c) or by any regulation promulgated under this section;
(2) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies knowingly to make any false entry in or knowingly to fail to make an appropriate entry in, any record required by subsection (b) of this section or any regulation promulgated under this section;
(3) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies knowingly to fail to comply with the provisions of subsection (e) or any regulation promulgated pursuant to that subsection; and
(4) for any person knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer, or offer for sale or transfer, any book, magazine, periodical, film, video, or other matter, produce in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce or which is intended for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, which—
(A) contains one or more visual depictions made after the effective date of this subsection of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
which does not have affixed thereto, in a manner prescribed as set forth in subsection (e)(1), a statement describing where the records required by this section may be located, but such person shall have no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of the statement or the records required to be kept.
(g) The Attorney General shall issue appropriate regulations to carry out this section.
(h) As used in this section—
(1) the term “actual sexually explicit conduct” means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;
(2) “identification document” has the meaning given that term in section 1028 (d) of this title;
(3) the term “produces” means to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted; and
(4) the term “performer” includes any person portrayed in a visual depiction engaging in, or assisting another person to engage in, actual sexually explicit conduct.
(i) Whoever violates this section shall be imprisoned for not more than 2 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both. Whoever violates this section after having been convicted of a violation punishable under this section shall be imprisoned for any period of years not more than 5 years but not less than 2 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[tcnelson 1]

ahhh...it's always that god damn moral majority. what makes them the majority?? oh wait, never mind.

get a life.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[SpeedRacer 1]

Kind of ironic that a guy named "Bush" wants to prevent people from looking at cameltoe.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Kind of ironic that a guy named "Bush" wants to prevent people from looking at cameltoe.

If you read the law, all it does is say that the people posting the pictures must document that their photo subjects are legal adults, and not minors.

Seems reasonable to me. For those sites that get their photos from other sites, I'm sure a system of swapping the required documentation to go with the photos will be quickly developed.

You don't want people posting vagina pictures from underage girls, do you?

And when I checked out your web site, what do I find, but this comment on a photo, from a guy logged on as "Horndog": looks like the 14 yr old i masterbate over in my area..great orgasms.. ohhhhhhhhh.

That's a really classy place you're so fond of.

[billvon 3,120]

>all it does is say that the people posting the pictures must
>document that their photo subjects are legal adults, and not minors.

That was the law before this law.

>That's a really classy place you're so fond of.

How much one supports free speech is determined by how much they support free speech that they find offensive, not speech they agree with.

[akarunway 1]

And when I checked out your web site, what do I find, but this comment on a photo, from a guy logged on as "Horndog": looks like the 14 yr old i masterbate over in my area..great orgasms.. ohhhhhhhhh.

That's a really classy place you're so fond of.________________________________________________I never read any of that shit. I just look at the pretty pictures

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[AlexCrowley 0]

My day job is working for a company which, while not porn, will be greatly impacted by this legislation. The real issue here is that its an end run around the free speech issues that stopped previous attempts at censorship of adult materials in the past.

Because pornography couldnt be defined legally they've created this odious piece of legislation, which in effect will make many major mainstream sites illegal.

Pretty much any naked image will be elligible, which will mean google, yahoo and other portals that provide direct access to images will be liable. As will a store like Amazon, at least one of their books will depict something nude and vaguely erotic. Digital photo galleries will be liable for every member, so that includes digital cam vendors who provide image albums for users, plus all the other third party image sharing sites out there.

This is a really really bad law that does more than infringe people's ability to find good porn.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

That was the law before this law.

I'm going by the law posted in message #4, which was put forth as the subject of this thread, and which is just now kicking its deadline into effect. If there is something new on top of that, please provide it.

Quote

How much one supports free speech is determined by how much they support free speech that they find offensive, not speech they agree with.

I didn't object to the "speech" which is the subject of this law. I'm just saying that it seems like a reasonable way to ensure that minors aren't sexually exploited.

I do object to someone having sexual fantasies over a 14-year-old girl. And if I caught someone doing that over my granddaughters, I'd kick his ass. Does that make me an intolerant redneck in your mind?

[TomAiello 26]

I don't think it's so much about what can be displayed, but more about who is liable if it is.

For example, if someone from a country in Eastern Europe, where such images are legal, posts a topless photo of a 16 year old girl onto the Bonfire forum here on DZ.com, who can be held liable?

Sangiro? The Bonfire mods? Just the original poster?

Sticky questions.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

If you read the law, all it does is say that the people posting the pictures must document that their photo subjects are legal adults, and not minors.

Seems reasonable to me. For those sites that get their photos from other sites, I'm sure a system of swapping the required documentation to go with the photos will be quickly developed.

And when I checked out your web site, what do I find, but this comment on a photo, from a guy logged on as "Horndog": looks like the 14 yr old i masterbate over in my area..great orgasms.. ohhhhhhhhh.

With the greatest respect, there are some major flaws in this law for the following reasons:

The previous laws in place required keeping records of the ages of all models. It had been used successfully. This new law impacts *any* site that touches on sex, nudity or erotica. In fact, it can be used to any site that shows any skin.

My problems with this? My site (which, as I said before, is not porn, but is positive about sex) has over 300k members. We gain 7000+ members per week. These aren't models, they are normal people like you and me. These people submit pictures to their profiles. Under this new law we are now in a position where we will have to approach our members and get proof of who each person is, because our members can show skin if they want. Let alone the fact that this is going to be an administrative nightmare (how can I prove that someone on their computer is really over 18? you can now get credit cards at 16), who's going to handle and store all this paperwork?

In addition, I'm demonizing my members, who value their privacy, I am removing their ability to be anonymous on my site. This isnt a business issue, it's about privacy. A large part of our service is allowing our members access to various health groups from all over the US and the world (currently my boss is in Europe after delivering a small presentation to a world medical conference), and a large part of that success is because our users can use these resources anonymously.

It's a bad law. Child pornographers are breaking many laws that have nothing to do with these silly rules. No adult content house would use underage models for THAT reason, not because some chick had to show her drivers license before disrobing. Child pornographers will commit their crimes regardless of the penalties imposed because they know what they're doing is illegal. It's not like they're going to look at this law and realize what a horrible mistake they just made.

This is another case of a law that makes people think that they're safe. Like removing your shoes at the airport and no longer being able to take your nail file on the plane. Just illusions to make people believe that the lawmakers are cracking down hard on illegal child porn.

As far as your quote about the 14 year old......yeah it's icky but those kinds of comments always seem kinda juvenile troll remarks on those kinds of sites. And as sick as it may be to you or I, if a model is over 18 it does not matter if she looks 8 on film (an exaggeration, but you understand my meaning) it is not an offence. Child pornography and law is a very intense and difficult subject to untangle once you get rid of the obvious - which is child endangerment/abuse. Just because the vast majority of society would find an image or thought or comment distasteful or disgusting does it make it illegal? There have been several cases in courts in recent years regarding these free speech issues - times when the content endangered no living child but appeared to show a criminal act (from memory I think one was a written text and the other was photoshop trickery). Can any free society start to prosecute based on someone's thoughts? And if the answer is yes, then obviously you've never said 'he got me so mad I could have killed him'. It's ugly and distasteful but nonetheless a thorny issue. Sorry to jump off topic there, but again, this law does not protect against these situations either.

It's my understanding that the law has been put on hold until at least September while various issues are worked out (like how incredibly stupid the entire thing is), there's a good chance that it'll be killed before ever being enforced - it really is that bad to mainstream sites outside of the adult industry, while providing absolutely no real positive gain.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[lawrocket 3]

John:

This regulation is to make sure that every producer, poster, etc., of an erotic image must keep information of the names and addresses of the people depicted.

Reverend Jim posted a picture his willie on this site. According to the regs, it may very well be that Sangiro needs to keep a copy of the picture cross-referenced with a database that lists the Rev's name, address, and confirmation of his age or face penalties from the US (assuming the US can get to him).

This does nothign more than make porn get regulated out of existence because the costs and time spent for compliance with the regulation destroy the feasibility.

currently, this law is being challenegd in a Federal Court in Denver. Also, the DOJ is not enforcing the law until September of this year pursuant to agreement.

edited to add:

Quote

If you read the law, all it does is say that the people posting the pictures must document that their photo subjects are legal adults, and not minors.

Look at the ti-tee bar thread. Can HH be expeced to catalogue the names, addresses and verifiable information on every model posted on that thread? Impossibility does not seem to be a defense. This site would fall under those regulations.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I don't think it's so much about what can be displayed, but more about who is liable if it is. For example, if someone from a country in Eastern Europe, where such images are legal, posts a topless photo of a 16 year old girl onto the Bonfire forum here on DZ.com, who can be held liable?

I would think only the person who posted it. But I'm sure some district attorney will try and make a name for himself by sueing a big company, and then some judge will have to slap him down. This will work itself out quickly in the courts. Just don't be on the bleeding edge.

Quote

Sticky questions.

I wish you had chosen a different adjective.

To AlexCrowley & LawRocket: thanks for that additional info. It's given me some things to think about it on this issue...

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

I would think only the person who posted it. But I'm sure some district attorney will try and make a name for himself by sueing a big company, and then some judge will have to slap him down. This will work itself out quickly in the courts. Just don't be on the bleeding edge.
.

Actually, as Lawrocket stated, the law would make the owners of dz.com liable for carrying the content, the same issue my company is going to face.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Fast 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't think it's so much about what can be displayed, but more about who is liable if it is. For example, if someone from a country in Eastern Europe, where such images are legal, posts a topless photo of a 16 year old girl onto the Bonfire forum here on DZ.com, who can be held liable?

I would think only the person who posted it. But I'm sure some district attorney will try and make a name for himself by sueing a big company, and then some judge will have to slap him down. This will work itself out quickly in the courts. Just don't be on the bleeding edge.

Quote

Sticky questions.

I wish you had chosen a different adjective.

To AlexCrowley & LawRocket: thanks for that additional info. It's given me some things to think about it on this issue...

Thats the problem.

Basically... In the next few months sangiro is going to have to come out and make a rule against posting any nudity or anything close to nudity on this site. Either that, or face the facts that the US Govt. might try to come haul him away to jail if someone gets annoyed enough to make a complaint.

Oh and... don't forget... Make sure you go ahead and check all past content. Wouldn't want an old thread to get bumped.

Child pornography is sick, but this isn't about that. This is just the government using something the people think is bad to pass yet another law that doesn't do what it is being portrayed as.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Basically... In the next few months sangiro is going to have to come out and make a rule against posting any nudity or anything close to nudity on this site. Either that, or face the facts that the US Govt. might try to come haul him away to jail if someone gets annoyed enough to make a complaint.

From a practical standpoint I doubt that. Both because the US Government will have bigger fish to fry and because the enforceability of that provision outside the US is going to be very difficult. Remember that this site is not a US corporation, Sangiro is not a US citizen, Sangiro does not live in the US, and the site is not hosted in the US.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Fast 0]

Quote

Quote

Basically... In the next few months sangiro is going to have to come out and make a rule against posting any nudity or anything close to nudity on this site. Either that, or face the facts that the US Govt. might try to come haul him away to jail if someone gets annoyed enough to make a complaint.

From a practical standpoint I doubt that. Both because the US Government will have bigger fish to fry and because the enforceability of that provision outside the US is going to be very difficult. Remember that this site is not a US corporation, Sangiro is not a US citizen, Sangiro does not live in the US, and the site is not hosted in the US.

Yeah me too... but it is what is happening to most sites.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[akarunway 1]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sticky questions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I wish you had chosen a different adjective. ____________LMAO. Thanks. I needed that

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[slug 1]

Hi TA

Agree

There was a blurb on the news about the gov't falling behind in the "war on drugs" due to a lack of resource's.

R.I.P.

[sangiro 26]

Quote

Reverend Jim posted a picture his willie on this site.

Yeah... and I can think of much better reasons than this law to get rid of that photo!

I will gladly turn over all pics I have on my server of Rev Jim's willy to the first FBI agent who knocks on my door.

Safe swoops
Sangiro