Wired News: Blue Law Makes Webmasters See Red
SAN DIEGO — An adult industry trade association plans to head to court this week to fight new federal enforcement efforts that could catch thousands of online pørņ sites with their pants down.
Under penalty of federal prison terms, new interpretations of existing regulations would require sites that feature photographs or videos of sexual activity to keep records confirming that performers are of legal age.
So if you’re having trouble seeing profiles on Gay.com or even Yahoo.com, this is why… Gay.com has announced that they’ve had to take down ALL photos until they’re checked, because the maximum penalty is 10 years in prison per violation.
UPDATE 9/29/05: Closing comments, as this thread attracts a lot of adult spam.
• 
So, in addition to flag-burning, Peter David also supports pornography involving minors?
Classic. Also funny.
Uhm, I was going to comment along that same logic, but without the inflammatory style.
All pørņ magazines have always kept records verifying the legal age of the models. Why should a website be exempt just because their media is electronic?
My question is, are you really disagreeing with that law, PAD?
I have nothing against pørņ involving consenting adults. My husband loves looking at pørņ too, which is fine by me. Pørņ is of course first of all a male thing because although I can also appreciate the beauty in the opposite sex, I don`t think there are many women who would spend a lot of time visiting such sites, to put it mildly.
But stopping child pørņ has absolutely nothing to do with censorship, it is about fighting child abuse. My husband agrees with me here. It happens sometimes that he loads a picture where you really wonder how old that model is. It immediately gets deleted.
No, I would even welcome it if this law could be introduced world wide.
Have you guys seen this yet?
“The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.”
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html
Hmmm.
As much as it pains me to come down on the side of a stopped clock like X-Ray, it would appear that, in this instance, he has doffed his hat, and, indeed, shows that he has a point.
On the face of it, I can’t see the harm in requiring websites to document that the models shown are 18 years old. It would seem to protect both the site and the people downloading the pics. Not to mention making sure that underage models aren’t exploited.
On the other hand, I’d like to hear a reasoned opposing arguement, if there is one. I may be missing something here.
Oh, by the way, Baerbel, I don’t think that it was PAD who posted this item. He generally signs his, doesn’t he?
1Says it was Glenn who posted it. My only question concerning the whole thing involves foreign sites… where child pørņ restrictions are either non-existent or just not as enforced… or simply accepting of younger ages. Seems to me, they are the bigger perpetrators of such junk so I don’t see how this would stop them. Granted, the fact that it might eliminate most of those annoying yahoo profiles that clutter up the directory… well, that would be nice… except it will probably just make the pics invisible which is one of the easiest ways to spot a fake profile so it really won’t help there.
Nevermind.
Oh well, I guess the hard core pervs are going to have to go back to the OLD ways of trading the pics and vids. Poor guys. Guess that means attendance at comic cons will go up.
I think the point is that a site with ostensibly “of age” models could be prosecuted for a violation that a less zealous administration wouldn’t get their ankle-length knickers in a twist over.
I htink the point Glenn was trying to make was that websites that allow people to post personals with pornographic or nude iimages of themselves are also subject to this law. For example, if I were to post a nude pic of myself on a personal at Gay.com, the website owners would have to have legal proof that I am of age. If they don’t then the website and I are in violation of this law.
You know, I consider myself fairly liberal and about as pro-First Amendment as they come, but this can’t reasonably be called censorship. Yes, there’s the whole “slippery slope” argument, but until the government actually starts overreaching, I really don’t see anything wrong with forcing owners of pornographic websites to make sure they’re actually obeying the law.
I also don’t think that requiring proof of age to be a form of censorship, unless you think child pornography should be protected as art?
So everyone agrees with me, the eeeevil X-Ray. Yet Peter David cannot respond, because he is too haughty to comment on my posts. He’s “donne” with me, remember? He thinks he’s “better” than me, the evil and deranged Bush lover. “Better,” apparently, because he is a “free thinker” who supports flag burning and pørņø involving minors!
Classic. Also funny.
I also don’t think that requiring proof of age to be a form of censorship
It’s one thing if you’re the one who made the image… that was the law up until today. Under the new regulations, I could post a pornographic image in these comments, and Peter David would be required to present the proof of age of the models shown therein, or risk ten years in prison. Even if the people shown therein are obviously not minors.
That’s why it will have absolutely no effect on child pornography, and will have every effect on the display and hosting of any image that would make your grandmother or pastor blush.
“That’s why it will have absolutely no effect on child pornography, and will have every effect on the display and hosting of any image that would make your grandmother or pastor blush.”
———
Oh God ….. not MORALITY!
NO NO NO!
Anything but THAT!
We must remain free to post animal sex pictures and show 5 year olds in pørņø scenes!!!
X, X, X, X,
Man. I try to defend you, but when you post with such sarcasm and whatnot, it really tests my patience and makes me want to NOT speak up next time someone calls you a nitwit and tell you to shut your trap.
It’s not censorship so much as creating the oft-mentioned “chilling effect” by demonstrating a propensity and a willingness to go after people who aren’t doing anything wrong. Meanwhile you can sneak a nuke through any port in the country, provided there are no dirty pictures in the same shipping container.
As has been mentioned, the problem with this new interpretation comes in when the site hosting the images is not the originator of the content.
They were discussing this issue on the radio this morning, and a webmaster of an adult site called in. His site purchases content from the originator of the pictures. Previously, that originator would be the one to keep the records proving the ages of the models. Under this new interpretation, the webmaster (we’ll call his site “Site A”) would have to obtain these records from the producer. Likewise, if a site (we’ll call it “Site B”) offering images and/or samples as links to “Site A” would also have to obtain these records.
Another question brought up is the same one that’s come up many other times ’round here. Namely, what exactly is “pornographic?” Explicit sexual content? Implicit sexual content? Full frontal nudity? Topless women? Women in lingerie? Women in bathing suits? Pictures a la Maxim? The cover of Cosmopolitan (which, in some retail outlets is covered the same way as a Playboy or Penthouse)?
This new interpretation will do little to stem the tide of child pornography. I mean, think about it logically…child pornographers are already breaking the laws already on the books. Nothing exists to prevent them from breaking this new interpretation, either.
Rather, the only noticable effect will be those who run adult sites who don’t break the law and either will not or cannot obtain the records now required. Such records are between the model and the photographer/videographer/production company. To require the individual, independent sites to hold such records would be akin to, for instance, your employer being required to provide a copy of your I.D. to any and all other companies your company does business with.
Of course, the supporters of this interpretation have made a great strategic move: support it, and have to play along with their (thinly) veiled attempt to rid the U.S. of material they find objectionable. Or, oppose it, and be branded as being a “supporter of child pornography.”
Nytewing, it’s even more complex than that caller said.
As an experiment, I went to an adult website. I clicked on an image I found intriguing. It directed me to another hosting site, with its own plethora of images. When I (failing ot find the original image) clicked on a similar picture, I was directed to yet another hosting site. In the end, before I actually got to something vaguely similar to the first image (never found the original), I had gone through no less than five separate sites, each of which had obviously linked their content from other producers. This law would require that records of the models’ ages be kept not only at the original site, but at each echo site. Even worse, some of the links I found en route were obviously from domains in Denmark, Germany, and (I think) Tahiti. Each of these places has consent laws which differ from those in the US, and are unlikely to obey a law passed by the US Congress. Therefore, the hosts of each of the echo sites could wind up going to jail for ten years for each instance of an image recorded in a place where such records are not kept.
Seems just a tad over the top to me…
that was the law up until today. Under the new regulations, I could post a pornographic image in these comments, and Peter David would be required to present the proof of age of the models shown therein, or risk ten years in prison. Even if the people shown therein are obviously not minors.
The “obviously not” ones aren’t the core of the regulation. Traci Lords passed for an adult for quite some time, beginning at age 15.
The logic of the new regulation is this: if you are going to distribute a product, it is your responsibility to ensure that your product is legal. This is not a huge burden, and it is not censorship, anymore than employment records are an infringement upon freedom of association. The better argument isn’t that it’s censorship, but that it’s anticompetitive; large commercial web sites have the staff available to maintain the necessary records, but the paperwork burden on small pørņ entrepreneurs is horrific.
As to the idea of you posting something that would get PAD in trouble, unless you clear it with him beforehand, I think he’s safe. You can’t be punished for something you didn’t know you did.
PAD, I know that Glenn helps with your site or something, but man, you should limit his starting threads. His ideas of censorship are laughable!
Magazines and pørņ companies that do buisness currently have to abide by this law. If I am wrong please let me know.
On the other hand I send my mom a cute picture of my daughter in the tub. Does that mean I can have my computer siezed and be charged for a crime?
When you make a law people tend to use it and interpret it like the bible. In as many ways as there are people.
Someone should tell our resident troll that PAD didn’t even MAKE the initial post, so his lack of comment on it doesn’t mean anything in any direction.
Jonathan (the other one),
You’re absolutely right. Since my post was already going to be long, I just kept my example to two tiers. 😉
Thanks, though, for bringing up the point of some sites containing material originating in areas not obligated to abide by this new interpretation of a U.S. law. You’re exactly on-point with that, as well.
****************************
John Zacharias,
Magazines and pørņ companies that do buisness currently have to abide by this law. If I am wrong please let me know.
You are not wrong in that the producers of the material must indeed keep such records. The new interpretation, however, would be like saying that Barnes & Noble, Borders, Waldenbooks, your local Kwik-E-Mart, as well as any/all other retailers carrying such magazines and/or videos be required to keep copies of those records on file.
“Someone should tell our resident troll that PAD didn’t even MAKE the initial post, so his lack of comment on it doesn’t mean anything in any direction.”
——-
Of COURSE not! Peter David only allowed the comment to be posted on peterdavid.net, and allows it to STAY on peterdavid.net.
This, of course, implies no endorsement. The fact that his name is the domain is a total coincidence! And there are LOTS of posts here Peter David totally disagrees with! Let’s count them…
Oops, there aren’t any.
Not a single one.
Never mind.
He didnt post the topic, someone else did.
And frankly. I dont really see a problem with this. If they need proof of age, then more power to them.
But then again it may be a bit hard to get all that done for stuff on a website, Unless they have the models show a birth certifcate and ID before doing anything.
Let me first state that pørņ with children is wrong. Now that that’s out there, we can address the issue of adults looking at adult oriented material.
It’s not the place of the goverment to “save our children”, it’s the parents that should be using software to “protect” children, or in a more radical notion, actually monitor and pay attention to what their children are doing.
People seem to have issues with this topic, however, when i went to see Dawn of the Dead last summer (An R movie), at least 1/2 of the audience was under the age of 10. We can’t have our kids see people having sex, but we CAN have them watch zombies eat one people and get their heads blown off.
Further, the penalty doesn’t fit the crime at all! But i won’t even begin to touch that subject!
This is another attempt and attack by the Republicans on the gay community. Is it any coincidence that there is a debate on Capital Hill regarding cutting of PBS funding after a lesbian couple were profiled on a PBS children’s show?
The larger issue isn’t protecting our children from pørņ, but protecting our children from gays…..
What makes this possible censorship is that the way the laws written, what it claims to do and it’s actual intent are two different things. On the surface of it, it is just a law to protect children from being in pornographic sites. Huzzah to that, of course. But… there are already stringent child pornography laws. The purpose of this law is to make web site owners go through a long and lengthy process of verifying all adult content on their site. This will be fine for the bigger sites affiliated with pornographic video companies as they already have this on file in compliance with existing laws for video, but the free galleries will probably have a lot harder time of it, often because they get their pictures from other sources. So, in effect, they are just trying to get sites to throw in the towel and give up.
This is where it can be viewed as censorship. The net effect of the law is the destruction of many pørņ sites.
On the other hand, you could argue that this sort of law HAS been in effect for YEARS for video tape and that they are just extending it to the “new” medium of the internet. I’m a bit on the fence about it.
“On the other hand, you could argue that this sort of law HAS been in effect for YEARS for video tape and that they are just extending it to the “new” medium of the internet. I’m a bit on the fence about it.”
Can anyone tell me what is WRONG with regulating the internet? Anybody? I mean, why not subject it to the same rules as print, or video, or any other medium? It can’t hurt anyone to crack down on illeagal activities. No one but the lawbreakers anyway.
“Can anyone tell me what is WRONG with regulating the internet? Anybody? I mean, why not subject it to the same rules as print, or video, or any other medium? It can’t hurt anyone to crack down on illeagal activities. No one but the lawbreakers anyway.”
Uhmmmmm…did you read the firstr part of the post… cause I sorta said why.
Can anyone tell me what is WRONG with regulating the internet?
Because the internet does not belong to the US. The US *cannot* entirely regulate the internet, as the current domain name structure has proven.
Can anyone tell me what is WRONG with regulating the internet? Anybody? I mean, why not subject it to the same rules as print, or video, or any other medium?
Given that the other term for the internet is the world wide web…exactly whose “rules [for] print, or video, or any other medium” are you suggesting it be subjected to? The U.S.’s? China’s? Russia’s? France’s? Which nation’s notion of what is and isn’t acceptable – and, for that matter, which portion of which nation’s notion – do you suggest set the standard?
On the other hand, you could argue that this sort of law HAS been in effect for YEARS for video tape and that they are just extending it to the “new” medium of the internet. I’m a bit on the fence about it.
Yes, you could argue that. That is, in the cases in which the web site is also the producer of the material. However, as I noted earlier, applying this same interpretation to video is like requiring not just the production company but also the video store to keep such records on file.
Pørņ is already regulated, except on the internet. Hardcore pørņ is strictly regulated most places. Also, disseminating pørņ to a minor is illegal, yet on the internet, it is easy for anyone to access any kind of pørņ through the simple expedient of lying. Plus, the added benifit of virtual anonymity means that the internet should be even more strictly regulated. If you go into Borders, they can make you prove you are 18 (or in some places, 21.) Doing that on the internet is nearly impossible.
As Nytewing pointed out, this interpretation isn’t so much censorous as impractical. There are thousands of “mirror” sites that post visual links to other sites, promo photos and clips of material that is produced and distributed by other sites, or clips and photos that originated in non-digital media. Very often, these “mirror” sites are operated as a hobby by individuals or small groups. And that doesn’t even count the directory sites that archive and link to the mirror sites. None of these people keep open lines of communication with the producers, or each other. The odds of them even being able to obtain records for every single series of images or clips on their servers are impossible. The only way to avoid prosecution would be to shut down completely. And, as Glenn pointed out, even sites that just let people post naked pictures of themselves are being affected.
All of which suggests to me that the true purpose of the law is to do an end run around the First Amendment to remove content they don’t like from public consumption.
Furthermore, the interpretation violates an important judicial principle by putting the burden of proof on the defendant. Instead of the state having to prove a crime has been committed, the defendant has to prove one hasn’t. I’m not wild about the precedent that sets, no matter what the law is designed to prevent.
Because the internet does not belong to the US. The US *cannot* entirely regulate the internet, as the current domain name structure has proven.
No, but it can regulate what commerce is carried on within the United States and with United States citizens. Telephones connect the US with the rest of the world, but nobody thinks that makes telephone networks immune from governmental regulation.
I think a bunch of people are posting without reading the link. Is making sure that everybody in a pørņ film or some sort of strange photo shoot are of age a good idea? Yes. Should it be illegal to use those who are under age for such things? Yes. And it already is.
The problem with this law falls under this bit:
“Now, the law is getting stricter. The new enforcement regulations would require webmasters that don’t produce material to keep age records for every image that shows or implies sexual activity on their sites. (Sites that simply feature straightforward nudity are exempt.)
“If the original content producer can’t be found or went out of business or is unwilling to release information, that causes this content to become criminal overnight,” said adult industry attorney Lawrence Walters. “These webmasters are facing felony charges if they continue distributing images they’ve been distributing for the last five to 10 years.”
The maximum penalty is 10 years in prison per violation.”
So, what this means is that a site that has an image on it that was lifted from elsewhere, while it may be clear that both members of the image are in their, say, thirties, is in violation of this law because it has no records to show the age of the subjects in the image. Sites owned by a pørņ company are fine because they, by law, have the records on their performers. Sites that deal in the sales of pørņ or like materials stand to be harassed by the feds since they don’t automatically have those records. If they sell materials from legitimate companies then they can get those records and clear up any problems until the next time. But, since the pørņ companies have to comply by these laws to begin with they shouldn’t have to do this because all the performers were already documented. The only reason to go after sale sites? Harass them.
Sites that make their money just by posting images they lift from elsewhere or sites where users send in images for voting contests or other such silliness face the biggest threat because they can’t document the ages of any of the subjects in such images. Again, they can have posted images of obvious thirty year olds but find themselves charged with posting illegal images because they can’t show records on or IDs from the subjects in the images.
So what will this law do?
1) The net loses lots of money from its #1 revenue source being harassed and, in some cases, shut down.
2) Legal businesses are penalized for no reason at all. They also get the joy of having to needlessly jump threw more hoops that truly do nothing to stop real illegalities.
3) The illegal child pørņ industry ticks along as is because they’re already breaking the law and they don’t care about the new ones. No part of their industry complies to any law anyhow and they can be busted left and right without the new one having been put in place. This law will only go after legal sites for no good reason.
4) The crusaders who’ve been going after “obscenity” will be happy since this gives them a backdoor law they need to harass and attempt to shut down the types of legal things that they’ve been after for years. Just because it won’t do anything about the crime they want to bang their chest about doesn’t really matter because that’s not what this law is really about.
5) We get to fight one more round in the “just what is obscenity” game. Some random pictures from a Frat House gáņgbáņg with five or six guys and one girl posted on the net does tend to fall under that label. But what about an artful shot of two naked adults posed to replicate something from the classic era of art? What if it’s a live model version of The Lovers? Is it obscenity? I would tend to say no. But the people who say yes now have another tool to attack and harass something they don’t like with.
And that’s abour all I can see this thing doing.
I agree that the law is wrong, but the idea behind it was good. there should be more regulation of the internet. As for the small groups who run mirrior sites, they should be subject to the same rules as a small pørņ company trying to make it in LA. whose laws should they be subject to? The laws of the country in which they are based. All of the adult websites could have different permutations for each country. For instance, in Japan, showing pubic hair was illegal. So they would airbrush Playboy to remove it. I don’t think that a similar protocol is totally out of the question for the web. Or perhaps an international forum setting guidelines. All countries have this issue, so an international guide is a good idea. After all, no one approves of child pørņ, and an international effort to stamp it out might work. I don’t know that this is the most viable idea, but a man can dream, can’t he?
Has it occured to X that this thread is only about 6 hours old, and PAD may not have gotten to read it yet? He may be busy, I understand he writes books as well as posts here. Or is X so self important that he feels PAD should be at his beck and call?
“Implies sexual activity?” Oh, that’s just loverly. Now every site that’s ever posted a picture someone might interpret as sexual has to keep these records.
Hey, I just thought of something. Google Image Search can, potentially, display every pornographic image that existed on the Internet, ever. A search for just the word “sex” turns up 1,780,000 results. Therefore, under this law, the webmasters of Google should be locked up for the next seventeen million years.
I guess we’ll need to build us some more prisons.
Initally I also thought this sounded like a good idea, until I read more about it. More detail on this rule change can be seen here:
http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=1&id=6351
Among the rule changes are
* Anyone who displays pørņ images is not classified as a “producer” of the material. Than’s like saying that if the corner newsstand carries Playboy, they are also the publisher of it.
* The rule change takes effect retroactively . So even though sites like gay.com have taken down the pictures, they could still be charged with breaking the law before the act was illegal.
* The rules are overly broad, they could even include online news organizations posting images of Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse.
Yes, age verification can be e-mailed, faxed, etc., but the authorities might want the originals kept on file.
No, but it can regulate what commerce is carried on within the United States and with United States citizens. Telephones connect the US with the rest of the world, but nobody thinks that makes telephone networks immune from governmental regulation.
Yeah, and that line of thought has gone so well for the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, and other groups targetting file sharers.
But the fact remains that this enforcement is apparently there to target sites, not visitors.
So, your line of thought is actually useless when this stuff can easily be hosted overseas.
Mr. Carter, I don’t think you quite understand the nature of the medium. It is possible, for instance, to airbrush out the pubic hair in a copy of Playboy sold in Japan, because it is a physical artifact, which must be physically transported into Japan to be sold. However, a Japanese businessman travelling to, say, Hawaii, can tehn purchase a copy of Playboy without the pubic hairs deleted. When he flies home with this illicit item in his luggage, should the Japanese authorities be able to travel to the shop in Honolulu where the item was purchased, and arrest the shopkeeper for peddling obscenity under Japanese law?
When one accesses an image kept on a server outside the United States, the image is not physically transmitted into our borders; it is not subject to customs inspection, nor to legal analysis. In cyberspace, remember, all places are one. If one accesses pictures of, say, a 16-year-old couple engaging in sexual activity that is maintained on a server in Sweden, where it is perfectly legal, should one’s ISP be subject to prosecution for allowing you to look at that?
If you first access a server in the US, whose webmaster has been told that the persons depicted are in fact 19 (and thus legal by US law), should the server and its webmaster be prosecuted for linking to an image that they thought, in good faith, was legal? Should the webmaster, whose server is physically located in, say, Fresno, CA, have to fly out to Sweden to verify the age-documentation of the persons in the image? How could he tell a good ID from a fake one? (I don’t even know what a Swedish ID looks like…)
Now, it is good to require the originator of the material to document this data. This is already enshrined in law. However, “the Internet” is more of a concept than a thing, and as such is not subject to “regulation” by anyone. The only way to enforce this would be to deny US citizens free access to servers not already examined by the US Government. In what significant way would this differ from, for example, China’s recent push to have the words “freedom”, “dissent”, and “democracy” blocked from all Internet access programs sold there?
Love this bit as well.
“The new regulations raise other issues, too. Some adult performers are afraid their personal information — including their real names and addresses — will land in the hands of countless webmasters who now need to keep age records for every image on their sites.”
Gee, how do you think you would feel if every company that had any dealings with your employer now had all of your personal information? Ever hear of stalkers and nutjobs? It’s not really easy to track someone down just by knowing their name. Search for John Average and you’ll get millions of hits. Search for John Average, born 02/07/1978 and you make the list a hëll of a lot shorter. Add in more information (such as a Soc Sec #) and you get an even shorter list. This law needlessly places information in the hands of people who may not be the most trustworthy stewards of such personal information. I’m sure you would just love it if it was your information.
Of course it’s never actually occured to some people, that PAD hasn’t even seen this post yet.
I see where people are coming from, but on a lot of levels it’s a regulation that’s going to be almost impossible to comply with for pretty much every site.
this website gives a good explanation http://freeinternetpress.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3868
can any business honestly do this?
The rules are designed to shut it down.
Furthermore, the interpretation violates an important judicial principle by putting the burden of proof on the defendant. Instead of the state having to prove a crime has been committed, the defendant has to prove one hasn’t. I’m not wild about the precedent that sets, no matter what the law is designed to prevent.
The precedent isn’t really that weird. If you think about it, the majority of US adults are already under that obligation– it’s illegal to drive without your license and registration on you, if asked you need to provide proof of insurance in the event of an accident, and if your car doesn’t show its inspection or registration stickers, be prepared to be pulled over. Business owners have to keep their business licenses paid up, and usually displayed somewhere in the office. If you run a restaurant, the results of the most recent health inspection must be posted. Commercial regulation– and even regulation of consumer behavior– is hardly new.
I do agree with your other point– this regulation will have the effect of driving a lot of smaller pørņ companies out of business, and it’s hard to believe that the drafters of the regulation didn’t see that coming. It’s not censorship, exactly, but it does seem to be a little passive-aggressive.
Yeah, and that line of thought has gone so well for the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, and other groups targetting file sharers.
They took over Napster and drove several other peddlers of illegal copies out of business. It should work better with pørņ– other nations, by and large, pay less attention to copyright laws than the US, but they’re actually harsher on freedom of expression. I think if these regulations put anywhere NEAR as much of a brake on pørņ as RIAA has put on file sharing, the archconservatives at Justice will be giggling like school girls. (And yes, like many of you, I suspect that at least some people at Justice are perfectly OK with any chilling effect this regulation may have.)
One would think that the legitimate pørņ producers would welcome such a law. It would prevent other sites from ripping off the original product and passing it off as their own.
Most personals sites already have an approval process in place for photos, making sure they are acceptable (according to their own rules). Yahoo will probably change their profile rules to make all photos in the age restricted areas to be approved first. Seems this isn’t such a big deal to me.
“Has it occured to X that this thread is only about 6 hours old, and PAD may not have gotten to read it yet?”
————-
Great! I’m sure it will be deleted tomorrow, then. I’ll check back.
If it’s still here … has it occurred to YOU that I am correct?
First, this reminds me of the one good line, possibly one good moment in the whole series, from the show SKIN. As pørņ company owner Larry Goldman is firing someone for allowing one child-oriented group appear among hundreds on their server, he says in an even, angry voice, “We don’t do anything with children. There’s a reason it’s called *adult* entertainment.”
Second, I read the original article (I recommend everyone else read it too, to see what caused this before reading opinions on it) and there is tremendous room for abusive prosecution here. Supposing I run a website with pornographic images from a company, let’s say Wicked Pictures, which verifies the ages of its performers and states this (along with where they keep the records) before every movie. If I post them online, I now need to get proof of the ages of every performer — heck, “for every image that shows or implies sexual activity on their sites” — or face prosecution. Do these files need to be available for every actor and actress? For every scene? What is “implied” sexuality? What about movies where the records never existed — a movie with, say, Vanessa Del Rio whose production date was when she was in her 30s or 40s, but for which no documentation exists?
And here’s the imortant question: How does this improve on current child pornography laws? I haven’t heard how this proposed legislation would reduce child pørņ, or how it would improve prosecution against offenders. It sounds like a way to make life harder for, er, legitimate pornographers by forcing them to provide the documentation that had previously been sufficient.
As for morality, I am always amazed that it’s more acceptable to watch movies where people get killed than to watch movies where people get laid. There are far, far worse things than seeing consentual adults having sex. (Not so many things better, though!)
“Great! I’m sure it will be deleted tomorrow, then. I’ll check back.
If it’s still here … has it occurred to YOU that I am correct?”
I was refering to PAD having not posted. I’ve read enough of PAD to feel comfortable in saying that regardless if he agrees with this thread or not, he won’t delete it. PAD belives in the free exchange of ideas on this board. Now before you twist that statement, and point out he’s ignoring you he has not deleted your post or banned you from the site. Were you to conduct your self in a civilized and intellegent manner Pad would argue with you till your little conservative hearts content. Example: Jim from Iowa. He and Pad have argued many a time. Perhaps you should try it. But I doubt you will.
Jeff 😉
Feh. Folks who like this development are basically being lazy. They want other people to do their dirty work for them. And they’re ignoring the law of unintended consequences.
1) It’s anti-small business. Makes it lots harder for small businesses to grow their business.
2) It’s unpermissably vague and allows authorities to prosecute on an arbitrary basis. You folks REALLY think it won’t be used to harass sites that are “merely” sleazy?
3) It fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the Internet (gee, that’s a big surprise). As other people have said, they’re treating hosts of sites as essentially originators and producers. That REALLY doesn’t match up with reality; content is generated through a variety of different ways that really don’t match up with this law.
4) It essentially tries to impose local morality on a universal arena–it’s arrogant and wrong headed. WHy does it bother so many people that the internet is a platform for material that they don’t like? People have to be actively seeking this material out…and if you’re concerned about your kids, there are simple every day precautions you can take….just like every other potential danger in the world. You don’t have to butt your nose into other people’s business to protect your kids.