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.
• 
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?
Depends if they have deep pockets or not.
X-Ray posts that PAD supports child pørņ because he allows a post about the recently updated 2257 law on his blog.
PAD posts that he actually does not have a problem with the updated 2257 law.
X-Ray does not retract his ridiculous slight toward PAD.
Classic.
Also typical.
“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.”
Intent goes a long way in a criminal case. The regulation applies to producers of an image. If a website does not make a practice to post or allow the posting of explicit images, they aren’t a producer of such images. I’ll grant that DOJ may try to procecute some sites that they find such images on, but I don’t think those cases will get very far.
I’ll grant that DOJ may try to procecute some sites that they find such images on, but I don’t think those cases will get very far.
Well, right now, anything is possible, unfortunately.
Posted by Bobb at June 24, 2005 11:32 AM
“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.
You — and most of the people posting here — are missing the point.
No, commercial producers of the stuff will have to work somewhat harder, perhaps unfairly, but the immortal words of Super Chicken apply here.
However, look at, as mentioned, Google, whose image search servers contain thumbnails of probably literally millions of images that they picked up by spidering the web, many of which may well be — hëll, ARE — “pornographic”. The operators of Google should be liable for 10^7 years in prison for offering a search service?
However, the real scary part is Yahoo (and similar sites), which allows people to post pictures of themselves — or others — in its “Adult” areas. Every one of those pictures — under this ruling — would subject Yahoo brass to ten years in the slammer. Yahoo’s policy till now has been “if anyone objects, we’ll check it out and take it down if it’s in violation of the law or our own TOS.” Now, if this goes through, it’s going to have to be “Document it up front”.
And each image will have to be documented individually — in a nightmarish bureaucratic process detailed in an earlier post, that puts me in mind of the statement that, if you take into account the paperwork required for every individual part (that is, not simply allow, say, one set of the specs for rivets, but require one for each rivet) a C5 Galaxy, the world’s largest cargo plane, couldn’t lift thepaperwork required to build one.
Mike raises some very interesting points. As far as search engines go, I’d say that a search engine doesn’t provide a host for an image. It creates a page that is specific and viewable only by that individual user, and even if it provides thumbnails of images on the pages it has pulled up, the host of those images is still the original site, not Google. The actual technological working of that may prove me wrong, but at least I think the theory is sound.
As for Yahoo’s adult section: this may well be a burdensome result of the new application. I think there are ways around it…maybe make a distinction between images posted by the users of a site (this would protect the fictional PAD from those naughty posts by us, his BLOG community) and those posted by the owners of a site. After all, this is just a policy statement about a pre-existing law/regulation. It can change as soon as DOJ starts getting some feedback.
From Michael Pulman: 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.
Me: Exactly! Know what the first thing John Ashcroft did when he got into office was? Anybody?Anybody? Bueller? It wasn’t looking for terrorists in our midsts! It was to start going after pørņ! Not even kitty pørņ! Just regular garden variety pørņ.
This isn’t about protecting kids, that’s the selling point. That’s the “WMD” of the pørņ argument. What this is about is finding gays who post to gay.com or straights who like to show their naughty bits and bring ’em in.
Nothing…NOTHING ticks me off more than censorship and this is it folks!
BTW, can someone define pørņ for me? Just askin’….
Michael
Michael Norton posted: BTW, can someone define pørņ for me? Just askin’….
The definition of pørņ:
If I like it, it’s erotic.
If you like it, it’s pørņ.
(That’s a universal “I” and “we,” folks, not specifically me and Michael Norton.)
“Not even kitty pørņ!”
Did anyone else have a really strange mental image after reading that, or am I just messed up?
Let’s see if this actually posts this time:
Lunchtime blogging again.
Mr Ries wrote, 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.
Yeah there is. My Traci Lords example earlier wasn’t at random: there was a seminal (note the spelling and get your mind out of the gutter) distribution of kiddie pørņ case called United States v. X-Citement Video, 513 U.S. 64 (1994). Under that and a string of prior rulings, there is a presumption that, absent the specific intent of Congress to create a strict liability offense, some form of intent is necessary to convict someone of a Federal felony. In other words, Justice cannot create criminal liability for an unknowing web site host.
“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.”
No..by this law..they’d need age verification for every picture in every Playboy and Penthouse every month. In a seperate storage space, that is available to the AG at any moment, for them to search that and every where else connected for anything.
I was really hoping Mr. Bjorlin would post here…I may be a lawyer trained, but he’s got more case-law knowledge than me by far. I just go from stuff I learned at law school and make up the rest.
Ok, not always…sometimes I post stuff I see on the web. Which isn’t always better than just faking it….
Ignore the stuff about site’s that steal pictures and post them. It’s a red herring.
Ignore the stuff about kiddie pørņ. It’s another one.
Photographer Joe sells packages of pictures of “Belinda”, a college girl who’s an erotic model to put her way thru medical school. She uses a stage name because she doesn’t want her parents to know.
Bob, Sam, and Jenny each have websites. They purchase the “Belinda” packages and post them.
Under this new interpretation. Bob, Sam, and Jenny must each have full paperwork including “Belinda’s” real name, any aliases, who SS#, Birth info.. for EVERY picture of her they post.
Joe already has the paperwork, as he’s the producer of the material.
Bob, Sam, and Jenny also must keep the paper records for EVERY picture in a segregated space on their properity, that is available to DOJ representatives at almost any time…and durring those times, the DOJ reps can search the locations as they wish for any illeagal activity.
Bob and Jenny are just running the sites from their home to make some extra money. They can’t afford a segregated records area and the extra costs of all the extra record keeping and overhead, so they close down. Sam has the space, but his buddies like to come over to play poker, and unliscensed gambling is illegal there, so he shuts down to.
Joe no longer has anyone to sell his photo’s to, so he closes up shop. “Belinda” didn’t want her real name available to everyone on the planet, but she’s now out of a job anyway and has to quit school.
So 5 people, none of whom were breaking the law..all who were performing actions protected by the first ammendment…are now out of work.
Who said there’s no chilling effect?
We’ll go one bit farther…
“Belinda”‘s boyfriend Ron posts one of her erotic pictures on his LiveJournal.
He’s listed in Eric’s Friend’s Page, so the picture shows up there, as well.
Livejournal, Ron and Eric (and everyone else who has Ronas a Friend), need to have the full documentation available as well, cuz if the DOJ comes knocking (though the law says they don’t have to knock) it’s 10 years for each and every picture.
Oh..and Eric’s documentation needs to include EVERY URL that the picture has shown up at.
Under that and a string of prior rulings, there is a presumption that, absent the specific intent of Congress to create a strict liability offense, some form of intent is necessary to convict someone of a Federal felony. In other words, Justice cannot create criminal liability for an unknowing web site host.
I found an article about Traci Lords on Wikipedia.
It did state (whether accurately or not) that even those who did not know Lords age still suffered from legal problems for years.
It sounds like in this case, however, that the DOJ is forcing all sites to become liable, not just the original creator/producer of the content.
I would think for most people, the threat of a criminal case against them is enough to shut them down.
Just like the threat of a criminal case against filesharers has resulted in a healthy number of settlements so far.
PAD sex “The definition of “sexually explicit” material is the exact same that it’s been for the past fifteen years”
And what is that?
A distinction is made between nude and sexually explicit.
So a naked woman is not sexually explicit? How about a naked woman holding hands with a naked man. How about a naked woman kissing a naked man?
How about a naked woman kissing the statue of David?
What about a naked woman really enjoying eating a popsicle? How about a fully clothed woman really enjoying eating a popsicle? How about a fully clothed woman sucking on a dìldø? How about a fully clothed man sucking on a dìldø?
Or is this one of those “I know it when I see it” things?
Peter…do you have the name and full records of the model JK Woodward used for the Fallen Angel cover? –it looks pretty racy to me…good enough to have DOJ check out anyhow. Do you have written proof that no model was used? If you don’t, the next New Frontier book is gonna be quiet a bit late.
Interesting discussion. People have talked about Yahoo and message boards, but could this also affect the sale of adult material on Ebay? Say I have a bundle of 10- or 15-year-old crossdressing magazines to sell, so I spread them out on my living room floor and take a photo of them. Since I can’t provide age documentation for every person seen on the mags’ covers, does that mean my photo would be violating the law?
Well, I’ll say again, this law only applies to images of actual sex. And not simulated.
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+986+1++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%282257%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20
“Under this new interpretation. Bob, Sam, and Jenny must each have full paperwork including “Belinda’s” real name, any aliases, who SS#, Birth info.. for EVERY picture of her they post.”
Under the law, yes to real name and aliases and birth date. The law says nothing about SS#, but regulations could add that.
“Bob, Sam, and Jenny also must keep the paper records for EVERY picture in a segregated space on their properity”
Yes, and no. They must keep proper records for every *performer*, not every image. So if they use only one person’s image, they only need that person’s verification, once. And it doesn’t have to be a segregated space…it does have to state where they can be found. “At my place of residence” should suffice. You probably don’t need “in the third left drawer in my desk on the west wall of my sitting room.”
All this is based on the law…I tried to do a little digging into the regs., but a google on the USC section turned up a bunch of sites that looked like pørņ sites, and not at all work friendly.
Point being: if Belinda didn’t want her name known, she shouldn’t have gotten involved in hard pørņ…there’s no way to keep your real identity secret anymore.
If Bob, Sam, and Jenny want to post pics of Belinda, and they bought them, then the package will now include the necessary paperwork, provided by Joe, the seller.
Who says the records have to be paper? Keep them electronically, and print them out when DOJ asks for them. Bob, Sam, and Jenny all have PCs…buy a bigger hard drive if they run out of space.
There’s nothing unduly onerous about this application. It’s a minute amount of recordkeeping that the business already performs.
And erotic images alone would not be covered, unless they were depictions of actual sexual acts. If Belinda just wants to pose nude for Joe, she doesn’t even have to provide Joe with her real name. Heck, Joe can even take her images and use CGI to depict simulated sex, and this law doesn’t cover it.
“Say I have a bundle of 10- or 15-year-old crossdressing magazines to sell, so I spread them out on my living room floor and take a photo of them.”
GAAAHHHHHH! The law ONLY applies to images of ACTUAL sexual conduct…..
“Keep your money, Wang, I’m going home….”
I’m about to have a rare disagreement with PAD.
By contrast, I was pleased to agree with him on all significant issues for once.
“So a naked woman is not sexually explicit?”
In this context? No. Of course, people in some parts of Georgia would disagree, but that’s not what’s being discussed.
“How about a naked woman holding hands with a naked man.”
No.
“How about a naked woman kissing a naked man?”
No.
“How about a naked woman kissing the statue of David?”
No.
“What about a naked woman really enjoying eating a popsicle?”
No, but now you’re making me hot.
“How about a fully clothed woman really enjoying eating a popsicle?”
No.
“How about a fully clothed woman sucking on a dìldø?”
No.
“How about a fully clothed man sucking on a dìldø?”
No, but thanks, that cooled me right back down.
PAD
I found an article about Traci Lords on Wikipedia. It did state (whether accurately or not) that even those who did not know Lords age still suffered from legal problems for years.
Yes, which is why there was a Supreme Court case on it (cited above). If the people who denied knowledge of her age had not had any legal problems, then the Court would have had nothing to rule on. That point having now been settled, however…
I would think for most people, the threat of a criminal case against them is enough to shut them down. Just like the threat of a criminal case against filesharers has resulted in a healthy number of settlements so far.
I thought that you said that RIAA copyright cases had had no impact on filesharing, and that you predicted this regulation similarly would do nothing to stem child pornography? Frankly I think you’re right this time, and that the file-sharing going on now is at least somewhat less than it would have been without the RIAA shark attacks.
“Has it occured to X that this thread is only about 6 hours old, and PAD may not have gotten to read it yet?”
————-
It’s STILL there….
I guess I was right after all.
But I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to apologize.
You’ll be busy thinking up new excuses.
“GAAAHHHHHH! The law ONLY applies to images of ACTUAL sexual conduct…..”
What is that? What defines actual vs simulated? If they love each other? In my earlier example involving the statue of david, when does simulated become actual?
And when your door is kicked down by the DOJ…does it matter? If a court of law eventually says, oh, doesn’t apply, it was all simulated…does that repair your reputation? Reopen your business that was forced to close? Return your equipment that was siezed? Give back the time you spent in jail?
“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”
——–
The haughty Peter David is FAR superior to me!
That’s how it works.
If you’re superior to someone, you can say anything about them! For example, Peter David is so obviously superior to Bush, he can say BUSH SUCKS in every political post with no problem! It’s not libel!
By the way, I am keeping count.
Since Peter David declared he was “donne with me,” he has commented on my posts over a dozen times. THAT is how much he doesn’t “take me seriously.”
But we know Peter David is a liar already, don’t we?
A liar who supports flag burning and child pørņ.
By the way, nothing Peter David says can damage or defame me, because no one takes what he says about anything seriously.
has it occured to X to READ (you know, the thing with the words? Oh, sorry, Thanks to Bush’s no child left behind, you don’t know how to do that) Mr. David’s posts? The ones where he says that he doesn’t think this is censorship, AKA (dare I say it) to some extent agreeing with you? or the one where he says that he doesn’t think putting it up was a good idea? I would take what I could get, if I were you.
And yes, Peter David IS vastly (nay, infinitely) superior to Bush, by reason of having intelligence. Thank you for finally seeing the light.
X-ray, you are aware your not impressing anyone here. You come off as a retard to wants applause for spilling your pudding all over yourself.
“yaaayy! Pudding! Gourge Bush says I love Pudding! YYYaaayyy!”
Moron…
“Belinda didn’t want her name known, she shouldn’t have gotten involved in hard pørņ…there’s no way to keep your real identity secret anymore. “
So because of her job choice (again, not braking any laws), she forfits all rights to privacy? What if she works for Mask-sex.com?
“They must keep proper records for every *performer*, not every image”
Not anymore. If the paperwork requiers that the image be attached to it, that means each image.
And it is (if freeinternetpress is to be believed) requiring the actual paper…not electronic records.
(which by the way does nothing to stop a Traci Lords incident where she had legal id with fake info on it.)
In the interest of clarity, here’s the definition of sexually explicit conduct, as put forth in 18 U.S.C. Section 2257
Your prosecution may vary.
One note: that’s U.S. Code as of 01/06/03. I believe some of 2256 has already been struck down as unconstitutional, specifcally the parts about virtual child pørņ.
“lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person. “
Sounds like naked woman with popsicle counts.
Actually, PAD, I can see how this is a slight form of censorship. I still think it’s more harassment then censorship but censorship by degree nonetheless.
Not all sites that will be targeted by this law are steeling pørņ. The way this reads you can use it to go after most sale sites as well. Yeah, you can, as you said, buy from the source. But why force such a limit on the consumer. It would be like me telling you that, rather then using a retailer or a company like Diamond, you had to buy each of your comics or novels from the company that publishes them. You can enjoy either the thrill of burning up lots of gas by having to go to the publisher’s store or shell out lots of extra $$$$ to pay full shipping on ten orders rather then one bulk fee for one order. Either way you’re spending more in hassle costs and less on product. You and everyone else may even have to cut back in purchases and hurt the company’s bottom line. Is this the truest form of censorship? No. But it may border the country a bit if it’s designed to harass companies into financial problems or create a prohibitive $$$ situation for consumers to get what they want. Either way you’re looking at a way to shut down something you don’t like and restrict the circulation or sales of a product you disagree with.
About to everybody else…..
Please, can we all stop talking about or with a certain Tweedle Dee the Wonder Dummy dweeb that we’re all way past tired of? If no one replies to him he may finally bug off do to boredom (it’s no fun to play alone.) Hëll, if you don’t even bother to read him you save more time for posts that at least try to be civil or intelligent (whether or not we all succeed at that every time out of the gate.)
“lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person. “
Sounds like naked woman with popsicle counts.”
Not unless she’s straddling it, no.
PAD
(it’s no fun to play alone.)
I dunno, I think he might enjoy playing with himself. (He’s probably used to it)
I am still on the fence about this issue. On the one hand, we have the first amendment, and all of the wonderful rights therein. On the other, we have what can either be seen as blatent censorship, or welcome regulation. Personally, I don’t like pørņ. It exploits women, and generally breeds a nasty form of the human insect. You do, however, have a first amendment right to look at it. This law, however, in NO way prohibits you from viewing pørņ till your eyes explode. It simply makes it harder for people to peddle it. That is not censorship, it is regulation; Censorship would be stopping you from viewing it at all, or making viewing it illegal. I see it as comparable to copyright, or intellectual property laws: you could say that because it is illegal to share (IE steal) music online, that you are being censored, when really, all you are doing is being prevented from getting it for free. And all those websites that steal stuff from other websites, isn’t that similar to Copyright infringement? If I pay a model to pose for me, and i plan to sell those pictures, and you steal them, then you are a thief. I see no provisions in the law for making pørņ illegal, or for arresting those who view it. America is a capitalist system. If you can’t deal with everything being level, with govenment leveling the playing field, so you all are subject to the same rules, then get out of the water, ’cause the sharks are coming. As for it shutting down sites like Gay.com; I agree that perhaps that is taking too far, although, since that site is most likely easily accessed from the web, so an arguement could be made that it is similar to public exposure. That arguement wouldn’t hold up so well, but it could be made. I guess what I want to say is that, while I approve of the spirit of the law, and do NOT think it is censorship, I do think it is going too far. You do have the right to post nude pictures of yourself, but I am uncertain as to what extent this prohibits that: as someone else said, you should know how old you are.
I thought that you said that RIAA copyright cases had had no impact on filesharing,
I did say that.
But the number of people the RIAA has successfully filed lawsuits against and the number of people actually engaging in filesharing are two distinct things.
What’s the latest figure, something like 10,000 people have been sued by the RIAA. Like 2700 have settled.
So you have 2700 people that have said they will stop. But 10,000 is a drop in the bucket to those that have yet to get caught.
That’s why there is a distinction between the increasing number of those who do it, and those who actually have a case pending in either a criminal or civil court.
and that you predicted this regulation similarly would do nothing to stem child pornography?
I’ve already given my reasons why I don’t believe this will affect child pørņ.
If anything, it might drive these guys further underground because I get the impression that the majority of sites *are* legal and legit (in terms of having only adults working for them) and because now is a very bad time to have the spotlight thrown on you for child pørņ.
It isn’t as hard as some would make it sound to track down the origination point of a website. Granted, I have no hard statistics, but I would think it’s safe to say that greater portion of child pørņ is already overseas and perhaps beyond the reach of any law enforcement agency that gives a rat’s ášš.
If I pay a model to pose for me,
To me, logic would dictate that if the model were being paid for “posing”, or any other activity of her choice, then how can it be exploitation?
It’s why I’ve never liked the feminist approach to strippers and such – everything is exploitation of women, these gals are apparently never making their own choices about what to do with their bodies or anything like that.
Not to go all feminist or anything: but in this case they have a point. Pornography and stripping tend to show women as only sexual objects. I agree that many times exploitation is over publicized and over dramatized, but it does exist, and just because you are paying a model doesn’t mean that you are intrinsically treating her as equal. You pay a prostitute too, but I doubt many John’s see them as equals, or as anything other then an object to be used. Pørņ, although less extreme, has a similar effect. Generally, most misogynists enjoy pørņ because it gives them that sense of superiority, that what they are looking at is nothing more that, to use a cliche, a “Slab of Meat,” or an object worthy of no more consideration then a nice pork chop, and to be enjoyed for much the same reason: a fullfillment of a purely physical hunger. I don’t know of all that many women who are fond of pørņ either.
Well, my simple question is, those of you who think that this is a matter of censorship, is Harlan Ellison a censor because of his recent suits against service providers? If the theft and reproduction of his material happens in foreign countries where it might be legal? Ðámņ…that’s two questions…
“This law, however, in NO way prohibits you from viewing pørņ till your eyes explode. It simply makes it harder for people to peddle it. That is not censorship, it is regulation; Censorship would be stopping you from viewing it at all, or making viewing it illegal.”
Yeah, but there is a fine line that can be crossed here. Censorship is when you forbid somebody from, say, writing a book that puts a world leader in a bad light. Agree? Ok. But how fine is the line when you have the government under that leader saying that while it won’t stop you from writing your book it will go after any store who sells it under some strange new law. See, the writer can be sued if his or her facts aren’t, well, facts. So the writer and the publisher keep documentation to back the writer’s claims. Its all in order and the government knows it since it was done by the letter of existing laws. But the leader doesn’t like this book. The leader and his men come up with a law that says that any book seller that does not have the original documentation to back the claims in the book will be sued for the statements found therein. Oh, they’ll also get huge jail time. Also, any newspaper or other media source that discusses the book’s claim will also find themselves a target under this law unless they research everything and provide their own sources.
Now, when does it become a form of censorship? If you make something legal that you don’t like a legal hot potato to sell or buy or a complete pain in the backside for anyone but the creator to showcase; does it dance on that fine line of censorship?
I’m not defending the pørņ. Not really my thing (and not just because my wife knows where I keep my guns and swords.) But the idea of this bothers me. The government, while claiming to be cracking down on an illegal subject, is passing a law that will only harass legal, if questionable, actions that a large portion of the group in power doesn’t like. Why should they stop at pørņ?
Maybe it’s just me. Maybe I’m reading too much into this. But this is the same group of people who’ve tried to play step by step games with laws they’ve written, fought for and passed in the last few years. They do tend to make you look three steps ahead for what fast one they might be pulling this time.
It exploits women
show women as only sexual objects
You never hear anyone say that the men are being exploited. Or that men are turned into sex objects. And I never heard anyone who makes these statements say why men aren’t exploited or turned into sex objects.
I want you all to ignore me. Stop directing your comments to me! After all, I am a stupid moron who likes Bush, who, of course, is another stupid moron.
BUSH SUCKS! Stop writing whole encyclopedias with no line breaks meant just to put me down. You’re only showing your own failings. Please stop it. Ignore me.
This just in: full enforcement of the new regulations will be delayed for some
http://news.com.com/Sex+sites+win+reprieve+from+new+federal+rules/2100-1030_3-5760944.html
I agree it isn’t much, but it’s a start
“You never hear anyone say that the men are being exploited. Or that men are turned into sex objects. And I never heard anyone who makes these statements say why men aren’t exploited or turned into sex objects.”
This reminds me of one time in health class we had to watch some movie about violence in the media, and they came up with the following stunnig statistic: 99.6% of all rapes are committed by men. My first, second, and twentieth reponses: DUH!!!! Why aren’t men exploited as sexual objects. Well, you could make a case that male strippers are. But you don’t hear about it, for the good reason that it doesn’t really exist. you want the flippiant reason why? women are too smart to focus only on sex. Which is true. Also, for men, sex is a low risk thing. We can go anytime, and we don’t have to worry about getting pregnent. Third, traditionally, sex is a male dominated activity. Rape was passed off on the women who were raped, and what is now reconignized as spousal rape was never mentioned. Also, take a look at growing up. For men, losing your virginity is something to brag about, and, in most cases, make up. Admit it guys, you all bragged about having sex looooong before it ever happened. With women, it is the geometric opposite. Women want to be virgins, and a girl who sleeps with a lot of guys gets called a šlûŧ, and is generally shunned. A guy who sleeps with a lot of girls just gets complimented. This can be seen in one quick statistic. Playboy sells about ten times the number of copies as Playgirl. Lets face it guys: we don’t get exploited. Lots of guys talk about the size of womens breasts, or how good she is in bed. Happens all the time. Now, correct me if I am wrong ladies, but I don’t think that women have that type of conversation quite as often. And who hits on who? Generally, men hit on women. you wonder why you don’t hear about men being exploited? Because it does not happen.
1) “Well, my simple question is, those of you who think that this is a matter of censorship, is Harlan Ellison a censor because of his recent suits against service providers?”
No. Anyone who takes something of yours and/or uses it without your consent or some form of payment has engaged in theft. But only if you mind. If you feel that the showing of three minutes of your film or ten photos from your 50 picture set on fan sites, showcase sites or sales sites will help your overall bottom line and don’t want to take steps to stop it then it’s fine. Some may see it as free ads. Not all the sites that this will hit are ripping people off or ticking off the creators of whatever films, magazines, books, etc. that they showcase. Plus, your question has nothing to do with this law. It’s not about helping to enforce copyright. Go back and reread the story in the link.
2) “If the theft and reproduction of his material happens in foreign countries where it might be legal?”
Tricky. Pre-net it was a problem. Now it’s a huge honking problem. I think the laws should be set by the home country of the creator and his or her written legal statements. Harlan lives in the U.S. and doesn’t want his stuff ripped off. U.S. copyright law and his written legal statements should be the prime guide in dealing with his work. If a creator lives and works where that sort of thing is legal and has stated that he/she doesn’t mind the work being put up all over then fine. It’s abit like music. Some musicians hate the internet at this point. Some are making songs that are for free file sharing. Enforce the copyright of the guys who want it kept as song for sale but let the freebee guys do their thing too. Kind of shoe string thinking? Yeah. But there is no way that just one ruling or law is gonna cover the net and all the places that it reaches. Shoestring may be the best we can do for a while. And it still doesn’t apply to this law.
“You never hear anyone say that the men are being exploited. Or that men are turned into sex objects. And I never heard anyone who makes these statements say why men aren’t exploited or turned into sex objects.”
Maybe because we spend most of our pre-married lives working at being exploited sex objects. We just called it a good time, Saturday nights, Spring Break or “that really great weekend.”
“Lots of guys talk about the size of womens breasts, or how good she is in bed. Happens all the time. Now, correct me if I am wrong ladies, but I don’t think that women have that type of conversation quite as often.”
My wife says, “he’s never been around women much.”
I say that you need to sit in our dispatch on a slow night. Walk in at the wrong time and you can learn way more about the female mind and libido then you wanted to know when you woke up that day.
Regarding a couple of stray comments from JamesCarter:
First off, “pørņ” is not a singular thing. There is a vast quantity of pørņ out there which doesn’t even feature women, so it’s very incredibly difficult to “exploit” someone who’s not there.
Secondly, what one person considers “exploitation” may be enjoyed by the one who is “exploited”. Technically, “exploitation” occurs throughout the whole of the entertainment industry, and is not limited to a particular gender. Regarding pørņ specifically, though, there IS pørņ out there, written BY women, directed BY women, produced FOR women, and which features men and women having a very enjoyable time. The old exploitation stereotype does still occur, but the responsible pørņ producers have no need for it–who needs to force a woman to wear a dog collar when there’s probably half a dozen out there who want to wear one? When one examines some of the women who’ve cried out against being exploited, the results generally turn out to be about money.
Third, pørņ and stripping involve more than just women. Women are equally guilty of treating men as “slabs of meat” as men are to women or, perhaps you haven’t heard of things like Chippendales?
Fourth, I’m not sure how you can simply assume that models are respected while prostitutes aren’t. Some models are treated as nothing more than props to be used however the artist needs them. Obviously, a “supermodel” is treated with respect, but then again, high-class call girls and male escorts also are treated with respect–unless, of course, they specialize in being degraded.
One final comment: The notion of “women as sexual objects” is the very heart of the Muslim view of women veiling. The Taliban believed that any part of a woman that showed could inflame a man’s passions. (Of course, most Muslims don’t feel women need to be covered head-to-toe and unable to see where they’re going in order to follow the teachings of Islam, but there was a documentary a year or so ago featuring a woman who visited ultra-conservative Muslim areas of Pakistan where unveiled women’s images on billboards were slashed and painted over because the image was too “immodest”–and these images were not of sexy women in bikinis which many Americans might deem immodest.)
X-Ray: So, in addition to flag-burning, Peter David also supports pornography involving minors? Classic. Also funny.
Liam Spencer: 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.
X-Ray: Yet Peter David cannot respond, because he is too haughty to comment on my posts.
Luigi Novi: Or, because he knows that you’re not interested in an intelligent, civil discussion, which is obvious from your behavior.
X-Ray: Of COURSE not! Peter David only allowed the comment to be posted on peterdavid.net, and allows it to STAY on peterdavid.net.
Luigi Novi: You didn’t ask Peter why he allowed the comment to be posted here; You accused him of “supporting pornography involving minors.” That’s not the same thing. Using the same logic, you could say he endorses your behavior, given that he allows your posts to remain as well.
X-Ray: 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.
Luigi Novi: People constantly post to disagree with Peter here, myself included. The idea that there are no dissenting posts on this site is a falsehood.
Jeff Coney: Has it occured to X that this thread is only about 6 hours old, and PAD may not have gotten to read it yet?
X-Ray: If it’s still here … has it occurred to YOU that I am correct?
Luigi Novi: It’ll occur to me that Peter doesn’t practice censorship on his site, and doesn’t delete material unless it’s somehow disruptive. Can you consider that? Why delete it, after all? We’re not talking about pørņ (let along kiddie pørņ), on the site, we’re talking about a discussion of it. Since when does Peter make a habit of censoring discussion on his site? Again, if this were the case, wouldn’t he have deleted your posts a long time ago? Why do you automatically assume the most negative intent? Isn’t it just possible that there are other ones as well?
X-Ray: 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.”
Luigi Novi: That isn’t slander. Craig’s intentions in choosing you rather than a fictional person in his hypothesis may have been less than noble on his part, but that’s not what slander is. Slander would require that he claimed that you had done such a thing. Not pose a hypothetical question involving you.
Also, why did you not say anything after Peter disagreed with Glenn’s argument, and even his posting it in the first place? You complain that Peter doesn’t respond to you, and attack him for endorsing Glenn’s point of view, but when he makes it clear that he does not share it, you say nothing. You also demand an apology from Jeff Coney, but say nothing when it’s made clear that Peter didn’t post the entry, and doesn’t agree with it. Why is this?
Michael J Norton: BTW, can someone define pørņ for me? Just askin’….
Luigi Novi: Material designed to arouse sexual feelings.
X-Ray: The haughty Peter David is FAR superior to me! That’s how it works.
Luigi Novi: No, that’s a Straw Man argument. Why would he respond to you when you never respond to refutations of your statements, and constantly put words into other’s mouths?
X-Ray: If you’re superior to someone, you can say anything about them! For example, Peter David is so obviously superior to Bush, he can say BUSH SUCKS in every political post with no problem! It’s not libel!
Luigi Novi: Really? Can you point to even one post in which he said that? Because the only one I recall saying that is you.
X-Ray: By the way, I am keeping count. Since Peter David declared he was “donne with me,” he has commented on my posts over a dozen times. THAT is how much he doesn’t “take me seriously.” But we know Peter David is a liar already, don’t we? A liar who supports flag burning and child pørņ.
Luigi Novi: Nope. He responded to Rex Hondo’s question about you.
X-Ray: By the way, nothing Peter David says can damage or defame me, because no one takes what he says about anything seriously.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, just the dozens of people who come here every day to respond to what he says. 🙂