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.
• 
Oh for crying out loud…
Can anyone honestly and, more importantly, intelligently disagree that with his most recent unprovoked, uneducated attack calling PAD a supporter of kiddie pørņ, X-Ray has officially crossed the line into libel? (look it up if you have doubts)
I’m all for the intelligent free exchange of ideas, but there comes a point when a guest has abused his host’s hospitality too much and the host has every right (and responsibility to his other guests, for that matter) to show him the door.
-Rex Hondo-
This post has been started twice before and the computer has crashed before I could post. Let’s see if the third time’s the charm.
In no particular order:
* The post was indeed from me, not Peter. I posted it here because of the widespread interest many folks here have in censorship related materials. Any flak should be sent my way, not his.
* The Free Speech Coalition announced today a stipulation between the parties in Free Speech Coalition et al v. Alberto Gonzales, under which the U.S. Department of Justice agrees that the regulations relating to the federal record-keeping and labeling law, 18 U.S.C. Section 2257, will not be enforced against plaintiffs and all FSC members until September 7, 2005. The U.S. District Court in Denver will hold a preliminary injunction hearing on August 8, 2005, after which the judge will determine whether to issue a further injunction.
Although the DoJ will not conduct any inspections or pursue any claims with regard to the plaintiffs and their members, it reserves the right to inspect and prosecute anyone who is not a plaintiff or FSC member. And there are thousands of sites that aren’t.
* Earlier today, gay.com, a community site, removed all photos tagged as adult from personal profiles. They were prepared to remove all cartoons, illustrations, and the like as well.
* In addition, under the law, if you wanted to post any adult photos of yourself, you would have to do so under a real name– no AOL ID only, or any other online psuedonym such as “Bulldog”. Your real name. And age. And home address.
* As was pointed out upthread, for the entire time this law has been on the books, the understanding of the word “producer” has been clearly understood to mean the entity that actually creates the pornographic media. In expanding the scope of enforcement of 18 USC 2257 to the Internet, the Justice Department has decided that just about everyone with potentially pornographic material online is a producer of pornography and must keep proof of age on file. Further, the Justice Department intends to make its change in rules retroactive to a time before the change was made.
* The best summation of the problem I’ve seen is at Free Internet Press, and I’m going to quote heavily:
I’m probably missing some subtlety here, but personally? I don’t see this as censorship.
I mean, I get the notion that the concept of “producers” is now being expanded to websites that didn’t necessarily produce, but instead only display, pørņ for sale. But the law’s not curtailing the actual production of it,which WOULD be censorship. It’s basically saying that if you’re gonna sell this stuff, you better have all your ducks in a row. Is that a potential hardship? I suppose. But no one is forcing anyone to profiteer off photos of people having sex. Sorry, Fred, but you knew the job was dangerous when you took it. If you don’t want to worry about having your ducks in a row, stay out of the pond.
I assume that if people still want to buy internet pørņ, they can go to the sites of the producers and get it straight from the source. If that’s not the case, then certainly the producers can set up distribution deals with specific websites as the “official” outlets and provide them with the required paperwork, right?
Wanting to make sure that photos depicting kidporn aren’t being distributed, and coming down on those who do…I just don’t have a problem with that.
PAD
“Can anyone honestly and, more importantly, intelligently disagree that with his most recent unprovoked, uneducated attack calling PAD a supporter of kiddie pørņ, X-Ray has officially crossed the line into libel?”
Nah. See, for something to be libel, in addition to being patently false, it also has to hold the subject up to public contempt or ridicule and damage his reputation.
In this case, the source of the comments is held in such contempt by this little “community” that nothing he says can damage or defame me because no one takes what he says about me seriously.
PAD
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.
But that’s exactly what this new law says. If it’s on PAD’s website, even if someone else posted it, PAD is considered a “producer” of the material and has to have the age records. If he doesn’t, then he gets 10 years in prison.
I read a “public” blog where all members can post articles and links that we find interesting on the ‘net, and this does include pørņ, so they have a large post about it here that explains how broadly the law is written and is open to abuse.
And last but not least, Child Pørņ is an abomination and Child Pornographers should be locked in small boxes with hungry weasles. Or an internet troll. I can’t believe that adults who enjoy watching consenting adults have to state that child pørņ is bad.
PAD writes: I’m probably missing some subtlety here, but personally? I don’t see this as censorship. I mean, I get the notion that the concept of “producers” is now being expanded to websites that didn’t necessarily produce, but instead only display, pørņ for sale.
Who said anything about sale? There are lots of people who are posting photos of themselves for free online, who I’m quite sure don’t want their personal information along with it. The law affects them as well. Bye-bye, amatuer pørņ, nudists, and explicit personal ads.
But let’s continue with the profit sites for a second… under the new interpretation, all websites must maintain their own sets of records for any explicit content they publish– perhaps even including explicit banner ads supplied by other companies or thumbnail images of explicit video jackets. Taken to a real world example, consider that if we did this with print, Diamond would have to include all that information with shipping lists.
Let’s even consider some of the other not quite pørņ stuff, shall we? HBO and Showtime could be affected because of shows like “Real Sex” and “Family Business.” And what about that explicit oral sex scene between Vincent Gallo and Chloe Sevigny in “The Brown Bunny?” This is a movie that got a three-star review from Roger Ebert. It’s not a pørņ film, but it will have to comply. And so would all the web sites that reported on the controversial billboard that shows Sevigny performing oral sex on Gallo.
Which brings us to the old reliable– just what does “sexually explicit” mean? Is it like the word “indecent” in the CDA, which got it laughed out of the courts for vagueness? Would the photo of YOU in “Faces Of Fantasy” be considered sexually explicit? And if so, would you feel comfortable having your name, address, and every pen name you’ve ever written under on file for anybody to get their hands on– like, say, readers of this weblog?
I stand corrected. I bow to the expertise of the man who writes for a living and momentarily hang my head in chagrin as I re-read the definition as I invited others to do. Previous statements made in this thread are not libelous as of this time, merely potentially libelous.
-Rex Hondo-
“There are lots of people who are posting photos of themselves for free online, who I’m quite sure don’t want their personal information along with it. The law affects them as well. Bye-bye, amatuer pørņ, nudists, and explicit personal ads.”
Glenn, what you’re saying makes no sense. If it’s photos of people THEMSELVES, then aren’t they going to KNOW and be able to PROVE how old they themselves are? As for nudity, the link you provided states:
“Sites that simply feature straightforward nudity are exempt.”
Look, I like to think I’m as alert to potential abuse of laws as the next First Amendment absolutist. Certainly, for instance, the laws involving nudity the CBLDF is currently fighting in Georgia are so badly written that the act of mailing a Valentines Day card with a naked cherub on it could get you arrested. But in this case, the examples you yourself are presenting don’t hold up. Your OWN LINK states that nudists can post pictures of themselves. And what’s an “explicit personal ad?” If it’s just words, it doesn’t matter how explicit it is, it’s still not images.
It’s not the definition of the material itself that’s at issue here. The definition of “sexually explicit” material is the exact same that it’s been for the past fifteen years, and your contention that it’s somehow being expanded is not remotely supported by the article you linked to (and if it’s not reliable or does a half-assed job of presenting the story, you bloody well shouldn’t have linked to it.) The main expansion seems to involve, and I quote:
“The countless pørņ sites that steal content from others will be in jeopardy as well”
To which I say, “Awwwww. My heart bleeds.” If they want to avoid trouble, then to paraphrase Jim Carrey, “STOP STEALING PØRN, ÃSSHØLÊ.”
And in the “real world,” Diamond doesn’t distribute pørņ, so that doesn’t track either.
I’m sorry, Glenn, but I don’t think you remotely made your case on this, and to be candid, I wish you hadn’t posted the dámņëd thing here in the first place because it’s my blog, not yours. I’m leaving it up because I encourage debate and you work your ášš off around here (and people, you know, hitting the tip jar on occasion to cover costs without giving me crap about it wouldn’t kill you, y’know. Mark Evanier mentions it on his board, he gets a few grand. I bring it up, I get hassled while clearing maybe ten bucks, half of which came from my daughter). But next time, check with me in advance, would you, please? At the very least, put THIS IS FROM GLENN in big quivering capital letters.
PAD
“Let’s even consider some of the other not quite pørņ stuff, shall we? HBO and Showtime could be affected because of shows like “Real Sex” and “Family Business.” And what about that explicit oral sex scene between Vincent Gallo and Chloe Sevigny in “The Brown Bunny?””
You don’t think that if asked, lawyers for both Time/Warner and Viacom could produce, within an hour, proof of age for anyone appearing nude and/or in a sexually explicit manner on their networks? Ditto for any film producer with half a brain?
“And in the “real world,” Diamond doesn’t distribute pørņ, so that doesn’t track either.”
Actually, they do. You can order Playboy, Penthouse, and other similar magazines from Diamond. I even know a retailer who was given a rack display with these magazines from Diamond. And they sell adult comics (for example, the Eros books from Fantagraphics).
It’s a form of censorship when even private or semi-private websites that aren’t seeling the photos are required to main onerous records on users through-out not just the US but the entire world.
Big Brother is one step closer…
Add this and the Supreme Court’s “Eminent Domain extends to private commercial ventures” ruling-stupidity and there’s even more reasson to hate what America has become… America was a good experiment that made it to about 200 years before it forgot why it was founded and became just another dictatorship…
I am wondering how it would affect a place that host for free. A good example would be Heromorph http://www.heromorph.com a place that as far as I can see cost money and does not make any money. It is a fan intrest site that takes various photos and pictures and maked them into adult and non-adult pictures.
“Hi Miss Sarah Michelle Geller, we need your birthdate and address because we have a picture of you half in a Supergirl uniform showing your breast on a web site that we got the original from a newsgroup, and it may be you in the original, an actress that looks like you, or a photomorphed picture.”
While some stuff could be understandable could just be used to force a certain type of morality.
This is regulation, not censorship. Does it go too far? Maybe. I think it gets the government one step closer to full regulaton of cable signals, which isn’t something I want to see.
But overall? Is this really such a hardship? There’s a real easy solution to this…have some code writer develop a file tag to each image that would fall under this regulation, and attach to the .jpg or whatever something that fulfills the legal requirements here…something like a statement that affirms that all performers are of age, or some traceable affadavit-like document that affirms the same.
Of course, only those that don’t have permission to use an image are really hurt by this. If some site is selling files of stuff they own, they should already have this stuff on file. Only if they’ve stolen the image do they need to worry. And it’s not a big deal for site that host images to get the user to verify their age before posting. All they have to do is keep the record…I don’t know what obligation they are under to make sure the statement is true, but so long as they have the verification from the poster, the site host should be covered.
I don’t see it as onerous…if other vendors of images of sexual activity have to do this, why allow one sector of that market to not have to do so?
Love this law. LOVE it. 10 points for strategy if nothing else.
Meanwhile, the government can seize your home to build a strip mall. BAD DOG! Man, that had me so angry this morning until I read this thread (I’m still mad about it, but this is nicely distracting). 🙂
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.
The thing is, David, is that the RIAA has NOT put a break on file sharing – bittorrent (for all you can get through that method of file sharing) now accounts for something like 30% of all internet activity.
If anything, the RIAA has only pìššëd øff consumers more. 🙂
Wanting to make sure that photos depicting kidporn aren’t being distributed, and coming down on those who do…I just don’t have a problem with that.
The thing is, as others have said, I don’t see this affecting kiddie pørņ in the least.
That may be the intent, but, well, those guys are already breaking every law on the books, so what does it matter to them?
And I don’t think the government really cares too much if one pørņ site is stealing from another. They might care if these guys weren’t paying their taxes, but that’s another issue entirely.
So, no, I don’t see this as censorship either. But I do see it as a serious attempt at legislating morality and trying to arrest people for said morality.
Now, to go back to some of the examples people have used – linking sites, etc. Will the Feds also be holding ISP’s responsible while they’re at it with newsgroups, since many places cache that stuff? Will everybody at Google be jailed for linking to every site in existance? What about web archives sites?
I guess we better start building a few thousand more jails to hold all these people.
“So, no, I don’t see this as censorship either. But I do see it as a serious attempt at legislating morality and trying to arrest people for said morality.”
Do you mean the original law and regulation, or just this latest attempt to expand it? Because this is only new because it’s being applied to a source that, until fall 2005, has not had to comply with this requirement. But adult movie producers, and magazines that depict sexual activity already have to comply.
So, are you saying that you feel that this requirement should be abolished overall, or that the internet should be exempt from the requirement?
Child pørņ is already illegal…and as we see every few weeks, the Justice department has an active branch that regularly makes arrests of those that view and spread child pørņ. I don’t see this requirement as changing that…that that are already engaged in viewing illegal activity are not going to be deterred by an additional 10-year sentence. Likewise those that produce it.
However, in a way, I see this regulation as a legitimatazion of the adult entertainment industry. It ensure that companies don’t hire another Traci Lords, thinking they can evade the requirement to hire only adult actors because the are only going to distribute material over the internet. But, the certainly can wait for Ms. Lords to turn 18, get it on file, and film away.
It’s got some parallels with the thinking behind the NBA imposing a draft age requirement of 19.
Do you mean the original law and regulation, or just this latest attempt to expand it?
The attempt to expand it.
Others have already given great examples as to how this would related to printed material, yet that doesn’t apply. So why should it for the internet?
However, in a way, I see this regulation as a legitimatazion of the adult entertainment industry.
Oh, come on, you think the government wants the adult entertainment industry to be considered legit? 🙂
ICANN just approved the .xxx domain name, but it will likely remain a wasteland because of the inherited view of what “xxx” means.
Sorry, PAD, I should have known better. I agree with everything you said, including that it is a very good idea to make sure that people don`t overlook that a new blog is from Glenn and not from you.
I am going to take broad strokes I am not in most of your alls league when it comes to wordsmithing. Bush and large group of Republicans that seem to be in charge until 2008 have no problem using fear to advance every single one of there “pet” projects. Putting a base near our major oil supplier. Changing Roe vs wade anyway they can. Patriot act, changing judges now freedom of expression.
Use the frog analogy. You can sit a frog in cold water and slowly turn the heat up until it boils to death.
I for one will not sit in the boiling water. Come 2008 Hilary better run. We need a stronger Democratic party maybe thats what this is creating I dont know. I do know that I will not forget the fear tacticts being used to strip this country of basic freedoms.
“Oh, come on, you think the government wants the adult entertainment industry to be considered legit? :)”
No, and that’s what’s funny to me about this. I certainly agree that most behind this change in interpretation probably think this is a great way to legislate morality, and that they’re one step closer to stamping out pørņ. Yet, by imposing such regulations, they are legitimatizing the industry…practically handing out adult entertainment licenses. Whether it already applies to magazines, or just film producers, it applies to some sector of the industry, and that industry, from all accounts I’ve heard, is doing quite well for itself.
As an attempt to legislate morality, this fails, because all it does is provide additional protections for those businesses that post their own material, and puts in jeopardy those that steal from other sources.
By this goofy laws logic a guy who owns a 7-Eleven would have to get age verification from Playboy and Penthouse every month or face hard time.
//Bush and large group of Republicans that seem to be in charge until 2008//
Don’t forget…JEB for President in 2008.
We may be in this mess (although I do have a somewhat higher opinion of Jeb than Dubbya) through 2012.
But then, Jupiter blowing up and the loss of nighttime in 2010 ought to cleverly distract us from some of the mess.
But then, Jupiter blowing up and the loss of nighttime in 2010 ought to cleverly distract us from some of the mess.
why does/will Jupiter hate America so much??
/flippancy off
———————-
Come 2008 Hilary better run.
Only if Wes Clark doesn’t run. In 2004 he was the only candidate (from any party) with any plans to get things done.
I’d echo those who are saying that this law will be a hardship mainly for the sites that steal content outright, as even the ones who only license the material and post it maintain some kind of legitimate business that should absorb these new requirements. As for the performers’ private information, many industry performers already submit that information every month in certain areas to meet health code requirements related to STD testing. Those same big names in the industry will only work with others who maintain their health clearances in order to maintain their own credibility as someone who’s clean to work with. Further, the provider of content must maintain records for inspection, but that doesn’t mean those records must be made public for anyone to see; the information won’t have to be attached to the product. That’s a method to make passing the records easier, but it’s not a requirement in this law. I agree that this law will actually go to great lengths to legitimize the industry, as both performers and producers will have to consider not only how they do business, but who they trust with these kinds of records. You’re the hot new pørņ star, with thousands of slavering fanboys after you; are you going to let just any Sleazy P. Martini website host your material? Hëll, if anything, this might end up putting more money in the pockets of those who actually produce this stuff, as they might move to more of a direct web provision business model or charge a premium for guaranteed legitimate work.
Sorry; in the above post, I meant to say:
You’re the hot new pørņ star, with thousands of slavering fanboys after you; are you going to let just any Sleazy P. Martini website access your private records?
as they might move to more of a direct web provision business model or charge a premium for guaranteed legitimate work.
I would think most do already.
It just doesn’t stop people from taking copies of any of it once they have an account.
Age verification (mostly via credit cards) is already a big part of the pørņ-site business model – a great majority of legit sites require it to get access to much of anything.
Sure, kids will find ways around this stuff. But then, kids still get their hands on the latest issues of Playboy, so no system is fool-proof.
I’d also think most sites, whether they provide proof or not, would be avoiding underage performers (for the laws of their host country) just so they won’t get nabbed in the ever-increasing number of world-wide raids against the stuff.
So, to a degree, these guys are already policing themselves based on the laws on the books.
I suppose what should really catch the notice of everybody is the notes that this will apply retroactively. Huh?
Since when is that legal?
I maintain a small community website with a forum that allows HTML. Which means individuals can include images in their posts. I’ve deleted pørņ before, but I’m curious how long it has to be up before I’m prosecutable for allowing the pørņ to be on my site. 1 day, 1 hour, 1 second? I’m one person, and unable to monitor it that often. I might have to take the forum down. This isn’t a pørņ site I’m running, it’s just a community site that has an open forum.
As someone mentioned above in the thread, Google Images would be in big trouble if the government decided to prosecute. They have thumbnails of many of these images on their server. I guarantee you they don’t have the records. If this law passes, and is enforced, Google Images might have to shut down.
Actually, the retroactive part doesn’t sit right with me, either, but I assume if it’s unconstitutional, that part alone would get the whole thing thrown out in court.
As for the age-verification thing, am I confused about what we’re talking about here? The law is focused on verifying the age of the performers and models in the material, not in verifying the age of those who are viewing said material.
There’s a big difference between 7-11 selling Jugs, and someone posting an unidentified video clip on their web site: Jugs has a clearly identified publisher, and it’s an easy matter to call up that publisher and ask them to provide their records indicating that their performers are of age.
With that unidentified video clip, you have no easy way to do so. If it’s a licensed clip, the site host should have some way to trace to the owner of the clip, although it sounds like under this approach that the host will want some form of verification from the clip owner.
As to your own personal web site…if you’re monitoring it to keep pørņ (not nudity, but depictions of sex) off your site, I’d say you’ve got a valid defense.
Isn’t it “Juggs”? With 2 G’s? I’d check but I’m at work and they tend to frown upon me checking websites with nudity. 🙂
With that unidentified video clip, you have no easy way to do so.
Which is why this whole thing is impractical.
Many websites don’t even give accurate information on their whoip lookups – I don’t for my site, because I don’t think every Jim, Joe, and spammer should have access to my home address and phone number.
This whole thing reeks of the impossible, due to the nature of the internet as a whole.
“This whole thing reeks of the impossible, due to the nature of the internet as a whole.”
This is where I’m at a loss…why is it impossible? Because it’s a hassle to provide a performer age verification in addition to an explicit video clip? It seems pretty simple to me: video producer gets age verification from all performers and keeps record of such. Producer posts image to website, and every time he licenses off the video clip, he includes a copy of the verification, so the licensee can keep the record. DOJ sees clip, asks for verification, web host produces the copy of the verification from his records.
You don’t need the M I team to accomplish this. UNLESS, you’ve stolen the image, and don’t have the verification to produce when DOJ comes calling.
There’s a big difference between 7-11 selling Jugs, and someone posting an unidentified video clip on their web site: Jugs has a clearly identified publisher, and it’s an easy matter to call up that publisher and ask them to provide their records indicating that their performers are of age.
But there’s the problem. Under this new law, that store clerk has to have those records, on hand, for every issue on his stands now. He also has to get them for every issue in the past few months because of the law being retroactive.
“ICANN just approved the .xxx domain name, but it will likely remain a wasteland because of the inherited view of what “xxx” means.”
Actually, lots of people WANT a xxx rating because of the inherited views. When it first came out, it had a stigma to it, and then the Pørņ industry started using it as a cheap form of advertising. And couldn’t we simply require that any website carrying pørņ register under that? And, I am still infavor of an international regulation of the internet. A set of guidlines, perhaps similar to that of the laws of the seas? In the laws governing international waters, courts will cite rulings from other countries. A similar law should apply to the internet. Most likely won’t happen, but I am an idealist.
Sneezy, I don’t think the regulation would require that. I saw someone mention that the regulation doesn’t apply to magazines anyway, but just for the moment assume it does: it doesn’t seem like 7-11 can be called a producer of explicit images just because it sells Juggs (I’ll take BBayliss’ word on this one…it’s been over 10 years since my days working at a college booze outlet). In that case, 7-11 is clearly not a producer, but a vendor, and the producer is cleary and easily identified.
Why this would apply to website is because the identity of the procuder is not as clear. Unless the site is going to post the producer/studio the clip came from, it’s reasonable to assme that the site may be the producer. And if the site is not going to make a clear distinction between just being a vendor, and actually being a producer, it seems fine to me to require the site to carry the verification. Or at least identify the producer.
What would be interesting is if the site just kept record of the producer of the clip, so that when DOJ calls, they can just pass the buck.
I’m about to have a rare disagreement with PAD.
PAD, I’m not sure whether you’re fully grasping the nature of Internet forums, bulletin boards, and the like. On many forums, users can post their own images. This law would mean that the owner of a site would be required to have documentation on anyone that appears in a photo that anyone that comes across the site posts. Put this in real world terms: you’re a college and there’s a public bulletin board on campus. Anyone can walk up an tack anything up on the board at anytime. Under this law, the college is responsible for anything tacked to this board, even though the college as an institution did not place it there. Someone puts a pornographic picture up anonymously and the college can be prosecuted for not having the personal records of the individual(s) in the picture.
I think the original intent of this law was admirable but it shows a fundamental lack of understanding about how the Web works. It’s practical application threatens any site that uses images of any kind — which is, you know, pretty much every site on the Web — and especially threatens hosts of online forums, search engines, and the like. The only way to 100% ensure you can’t be found in violation is to have the complete information for every image that appears on your site — even if you didn’t put it there yourself — or to go to a completely image-less design.
Moreover, it makes even responsible site owners who follow the law to the letter responsible for people who steal images and bandwidth by posting them on other sites without permission. As a Webmaster, I can tell you: there’s no way in heck you’re going to know about or catch everyone that does this. A lot of people could potentially be prosecuted for something they have absolutely no control over.
Good intent, bad legislation. It’s impractical, and I would wager it’s also unconstitutional.
I moderate an online forum for my employer (a daily newspaper) and I will have to bring this to their attention as it could have a serious effect on our business — we may have to consider eliminating the forum entirely if this law stands.
“feature photographs or videos of sexual activity to keep records confirming that performers are of legal age.”
Where does anyone get out of that that all images will require age verification? This doesn’t apply the neat sig you have, featuring a picture of that time you got your foot stuck in a fence. It doesn’t even apply to images of nudity, gore, or violence. It only applies to those images depicting sexual acts…and most producers of such images are already required to keep age verification on record. The justification is because the government has an interest in protecting children from performing in pørņ. There’s very little chance that this is going to expand into everyone’s web page they host.
Using the college bulletin board analogy…if someone posts a picture of a couple having sex on that board, the first administrator or faculty member that walks by is going to take it down…just as many site hosters, I’m sure, take down content that they find to be offensive.
Bobb: It applies to anything “they” consider “adult.” As the record of the last few years clearly shows, that’s widely open to interpretation.
Quoting PAD:
It’s not the definition of the material itself that’s at issue here. The definition of “sexually explicit” material is the exact same that it’s been for the past fifteen years, and your contention that it’s somehow being expanded is not remotely supported by the article (Glenn) linked to (and if it’s not reliable or does a half-assed job of presenting the story, you bloody well shouldn’t have linked to it.) The main expansion seems to involve, and I quote: “The countless pørņ sites that steal content from others will be in jeopardy as well”
Legitimate producers and providers will weather this; the argument that “they’re already doing it so the law’s unnecessary” to me says “Great, it won’t actually be that big of a burden because they have the mechanisms in place already. There might be some costs for standardization, but otherwise, those that are already doing the right thing will be fine.”
Where does anyone get out of that that all images will require age verification?
Past history.
Given that the film CARNAL KNOWLEDGE (which wasn’t that objectionable of a movie even when it came out) and that the play SEXUAL PERVERSITY IN CHICAGO just for its title were hassled by authorities should give anyone pause to think.
“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 language from the article accurately conveys the language of the regulation, it’s not “adult” material that is covered. It’s a very specific kind of image being addressed.
There’s nothing in the application of this regulation that applies to the content of the material. You want to shoot a video of explicit sex and post it on the web? No one’s stopping you. Just keep a record that shows that the performers are all of proper age.
This is where I’m at a loss…why is it impossible?
And this is where I go to back to the point about the internet belonging to the world, not just the US.
A site wants to get around this stuff? They host overseas. Nothing will really change in the long run, in terms of the feds cracking down on the sites themselves.
Actually, lots of people WANT a xxx rating because of the inherited views.
People may want it, but not the industry itself.
Either way, using the .xxx domain will be voluntary.
And then what truly belongs under .xxx? Hard core pørņ? Sexual activities? Does Playboy belong there? Informational sites?
These are already problems that net filtering programs have to deal with, and they’ve not solved it.
It’s a very specific kind of image being addressed.
But it’s being addressed in a very bad way.
Let’s say, for example, that X-Ray comes along and posts a link to a hard core pic as a way of getting PAD in trouble with the law. Sure, the people involved are adults and consenting, but it’s a sexual activity.
So, it doesn’t get pulled for a couple of hours because Glenn & PAD are in bed.
Do the feds come knocking on PAD’s door in the morning looking to arrest him for the pic because PAD obviously wouldn’t have the appropriate background information on those in the pic?
Because that is what is at stake for any individual site or forum, whether it be a search engine, a blog, or a message board.
Another couple questions to be raised:
* If your company is in the U.S., & you use a foreign server, or if you’re in a foreign country but use a U.S. server, are you under U.S. jurisdictio in either or both cases?
* If you own the site in question but have the material on someone else’s server (such as with a hosting service), do both parties have to have the documentation, or just the site owner?
“‘This is where I’m at a loss…why is it impossible?’
And this is where I go to back to the point about the internet belonging to the world, not just the US.”
This doesn’t make it impossible. This just means that there will be those that violate it that are beyond the jurisdiction of the DOJ. Realistically speaking it’s “impossible” to catch and fine each and every person that speeds. That doesn’t mean that we just throw away all speed restrictions.
So someone posts an image (PAD’s website appear to not allow posters to post images) that would be required. And Glenn doesn’t catch it…BUT, they make it a regular practice to remove such images…IF DOJ manages to see the image before it gets removed, and IF the concact PAD, he simply tells them the truth…posted by a user, routinly removed by the site host, end of story. No DOJ prosecutor is going to file a case under those facts, because they’d likely be tossed from court.
Besides which, PAD could always provide the URL ID of the poster to the DOJ, and they could go after that person.
Let’s say that Craig J. Ries is a murderer, and is planning to murder someone right now. Since he isn’t, that would be slander. Craig would be outraged! Yet Craig feels no problem slandering ME:
“Let’s say, for example, that X-Ray comes along and posts a link to a hard core pic as a way of getting PAD in trouble with the law. Sure, the people involved are adults and consenting, but it’s a sexual activity.”
I disagree with Craig, so he feels free to slander me.
Typical liberal.
Classic.
Also funny.
“So, it doesn’t get pulled for a couple of hours because Glenn & PAD are in bed.”
Well they better not take pictures and post them on the web… Does Peter’s wife know about this?
Interesting hypothetical:
What happens if a newspaper publishes a column which contains a libel – they’re responsible, right?
What happens if someone posts a libelous comment on PAD’s blog…or any blog…and it isn’t removed. Can PAD…or any blogger…be held responsible?
I think the answer is yes.
I’m also curious, half in jest, half not…
“Public Figure” is often defined as within a specific community. So someone who generally is unknown to the rest of the world still has to prove malicious intent if they are libeled/slandered within a specific community.
X-Ray has made himself/herself a public figure in PADs blog community, through use of sarcasm, and ridicule. He/she might have to prove malicious intent.
(X-ray, I apologize if you have made your gender clear in an earlier post, but I don’t recall, and wouldn’t want to assume.)
Let’s say that Craig J. Ries is a murderer, and is planning to murder someone right now.
Well, there ARE plenty of places to hide the body.
But, let’s face it – you just aren’t worth the effort.
IF DOJ manages to see the image before it gets removed, and IF the concact PAD, he simply tells them the truth
What does the truth matter? PAD broke the law whether he intended to or not.
Right now, tons of people are breaking the law whether they’re aware of it or not, and there’s nothing stopping the DOJ from arresting anybody they want.
I’m sure the DOJ will just tell him that he should never have allowed images in the first place, blogs are evil (except those Republican-run ones), the internet should be controlled by the government etc.