Advertisement
i picked this up on the Unusual Sex Practices tribe. Good god, welcome to the fundamentalist christian oligarchy of america.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Folks, here's a link to an article you all should read. It may describe why a bunch of photos were taken off Tribe. Your internet and in-store adult experiences may change significantly in the next few weeks because of this. Go to the link below and read the article near the beginning titled:
The Government Is Controlling What You Watch-
The revised Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257 Law
www.holisticwisdom.com/newsle...-05.htm
The entire text of the article is below, but at the link above, there are some graphics not shown here:
=================================================
Why Many Adult Stores May Have To Stop Selling And Displaying Some of Their Better Sex Videos, Books,
Adult Films & Pictures June 2005
The Government Is Controlling What You Watch-
The revised Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257 Law
Lisa S. Lawless, RM CEO
Holistic Wisdom, Inc. Founder
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has been threatening to make it almost impossible to sell better sex and adult videos or pictures for some time now, but they finally have implemented a law which takes effect June 23rd, 2005 to attempt to do just that. This article will explain to you the consumer, what that means to you.
There is a law that was created in 1988 to protect minors from appearing in adult films, etc... a good law if you ask me as I am very much against minors being involved in anything of the like. The law was in a document called Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257, which is a Federal Record-keeping and Labeling law that required anyone who photographed or filmed a person in the US to have them complete a form that acknowledged that they were 18 years of age or older. They had to provide a picture I.D. issued by the state. and provide any aliases they may have. They needed to provide their legal name, home address and have a witness sign the document. This was a good law that helped to reduce the chance that a minor was being filmed or photographed sexually.
The New Law
What the Department of Justice has now done to change this law using the "excuse" of protecting minors (when in reality it is clear they are trying to impair the adult industry) is an outrage and WILL affect you if you have any liking of sexuality and sexual products, videos, pictures, etc.
The DOJ is now demanding that not only will a producer have the Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257 information for each model that has been photographed or filmed but that anyone who sells or displays the photographs or video has to have that document on file which includes the distributors, retailers and anyone who shows pictures of that model on their web site.
What Types Of Pictures Or Video Is This Talking About?
This pertains to any visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct in a book, picture, video, streaming video, thumbnail... you name it.
What do they mean when the say "sexually explicit?" This means (sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person).
The DOJ calls these businesses and individuals who sell or promote such material "Secondary Producers" even though they did not produce anything and are only displaying and/or selling what the "Primary Producer" made!
Under the revised Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257 law, the so-called “secondary producers,” such as many webmasters, will be required to have Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257 records for all sexually explicit depictions dating back to 1995. For many, this will create a huge problem, because secondary producers will have to locate records from primary producers who may have moved, shut down, or otherwise disappeared.
This means that the adult community has exactly one month to secure these files and make sure everything in them complies with the new regulations, because the arrests could hit anytime after June 24, and the general consensus is that it'll hit webmasters first and hardest.
What Are The Penalties For Not Complying?
In the immediate future, you're going to be seeing inspections and arrests, not because of 'illegal' content, but because webmasters and stores don't have the records because they always thought that it was and should be the producer's job to make sure that the models are over 18 years of age. Violation of 18 U.S.C. 2257 is good for up to 10 years in federal prison... per violation!
Example
Below is a very small scale of what this will look like. Imagine that it is for one video with six models in it. All six of the model's personal information, home address, real name, and picture of their ID has to be on file with every single store or individual who sells that video. Now, imagine that each store who carries hundreds of videos has the burden to have all of those files for each model in every video they carry!
This isn't just for retailers either... this is for anyone displaying such pictures on their web site, etc.! So what happens if you don't comply? Well, you can go to jail! Yep, that is right... even if a producer has proof that the models were over 18 years of age and no minors were involved... if you do not have the paperwork and you display the photographs or video or sell them... you are now breaking the law.
What harm has been committed here is beyond me. Why we now have to go to the trouble of proving that all the videos that we carry are of models of 18 years of age or older by having those model's Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257 forms on file is truly a conservative agenda to make the adult industry fight to stay alive.
The Real Motivation Is Not Protecting Kids
This is clearly not about protecting minors. If the Department of Justice really wanted to protect minors they would simply have producers of pictures and video, etc. provide documentation directly to them in a federal database proving the models in film or photographs are adults. Simple enough right?
It would work well this way, because everything would have to be registered with them and if it wasn't then they could easily check. However, the REAL MOTIVATION is to shut down adult retailers and you can bet they have a list of companies they are going to start with... and you can also bet that getting access to any kind of sexual content will be increasingly difficult as the the DOJ continues to take away the freedoms of Americans.
This is an attack, we are back to the dark ages of witch hunts and instead of burning innocent people at the stake they are putting them in jail and ripping apart their businesses and families.
Why is sexuality so terrifying in this day and age? Why is masturbation and nudity seen as something that is listed right beside beastiliaty and child molestation? Have people absolutely lost their minds? They are so different than one another. It is like comparing someone who has a normal sleep pattern to someone who has narcolepsy. One is normal, one is an illness!
Over fifty percent of the web sites out there will most likely be devastated because they're carrying content, either thumbnails or streaming or fixed photos that they have no records for and they will be at risk to get 10 years in the slammer for it.
Breach Of Confidentiality
This does not even mention the incredible breach of confidentiality that is going on here. The models have to provide their home address, real names and photos of their ID cards to all of these retailers, which in turn basically makes it public information!?! That is absurd. Do you know how many psychos want to track down models in the adult industry and now we are having to pass around their real names and home address!?!
Making It Very Hard To Sell Videos Or Show Pictures
This new law is requiring stores like ours to have to track down producers and ask them for the paperwork on all of their models in order to sell their video. Until we have that paperwork on file, we cannot show the images online or sell them without breaking the law. It is evident that the US is becoming less and less of a free democracy making it more and more difficult for adults to enjoy and be educated on the basic human right of sexuality.
The Free Speech Coalition Are Fighting This!
Now that the regulations have been published, FSC (Free Speech Coalition) will go into federal district court to seek an injunction on behalf of its members. FSC plans two lawsuits, led by premiere First Amendment attorneys, one to be filed on the West Coast by H. Louis Sirkin, and the other by Paul Cambria on the East Coast.
The DOJ has amended some requirements from its original proposal, but in many areas the final version is unbending, making compliance extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Will They Win?
Right now, it really does not look good. The FSC may make a dent in some minor changes, but overall this ridiculous law looks like it will be around to stomp on the sexual freedoms of all Americans.
What Will Become Of Our Company & Products
With such a conservative, anti-sex government right now it is hard to predict the future. While we may have to discontinue selling some of our videos until we can find the producers to get the necessary paperwork on each of the models in those videos, we will do our best to keep our current selection of videos available as well as new releases.
However, what you may see happen is that we like many companies may be unable to secure some of the proper release forms on some of the older videos as the producers may be impossible to find... so if you want a Better Sex Videos from our site, now would be the time to buy it as we may not be able to offer it down the road.
What Can You Do?
Join the Free Speech Coalition and find out more about what is going on and what you can do through their web site! In the meantime, stay tuned to our site for updates and know that we intend to stand up for your sexual health and education rights.
=================================================
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Folks, here's a link to an article you all should read. It may describe why a bunch of photos were taken off Tribe. Your internet and in-store adult experiences may change significantly in the next few weeks because of this. Go to the link below and read the article near the beginning titled:
The Government Is Controlling What You Watch-
The revised Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257 Law
www.holisticwisdom.com/newsle...-05.htm
The entire text of the article is below, but at the link above, there are some graphics not shown here:
=================================================
Why Many Adult Stores May Have To Stop Selling And Displaying Some of Their Better Sex Videos, Books,
Adult Films & Pictures June 2005
The Government Is Controlling What You Watch-
The revised Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257 Law
Lisa S. Lawless, RM CEO
Holistic Wisdom, Inc. Founder
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has been threatening to make it almost impossible to sell better sex and adult videos or pictures for some time now, but they finally have implemented a law which takes effect June 23rd, 2005 to attempt to do just that. This article will explain to you the consumer, what that means to you.
There is a law that was created in 1988 to protect minors from appearing in adult films, etc... a good law if you ask me as I am very much against minors being involved in anything of the like. The law was in a document called Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257, which is a Federal Record-keeping and Labeling law that required anyone who photographed or filmed a person in the US to have them complete a form that acknowledged that they were 18 years of age or older. They had to provide a picture I.D. issued by the state. and provide any aliases they may have. They needed to provide their legal name, home address and have a witness sign the document. This was a good law that helped to reduce the chance that a minor was being filmed or photographed sexually.
The New Law
What the Department of Justice has now done to change this law using the "excuse" of protecting minors (when in reality it is clear they are trying to impair the adult industry) is an outrage and WILL affect you if you have any liking of sexuality and sexual products, videos, pictures, etc.
The DOJ is now demanding that not only will a producer have the Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257 information for each model that has been photographed or filmed but that anyone who sells or displays the photographs or video has to have that document on file which includes the distributors, retailers and anyone who shows pictures of that model on their web site.
What Types Of Pictures Or Video Is This Talking About?
This pertains to any visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct in a book, picture, video, streaming video, thumbnail... you name it.
What do they mean when the say "sexually explicit?" This means (sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person).
The DOJ calls these businesses and individuals who sell or promote such material "Secondary Producers" even though they did not produce anything and are only displaying and/or selling what the "Primary Producer" made!
Under the revised Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257 law, the so-called “secondary producers,” such as many webmasters, will be required to have Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257 records for all sexually explicit depictions dating back to 1995. For many, this will create a huge problem, because secondary producers will have to locate records from primary producers who may have moved, shut down, or otherwise disappeared.
This means that the adult community has exactly one month to secure these files and make sure everything in them complies with the new regulations, because the arrests could hit anytime after June 24, and the general consensus is that it'll hit webmasters first and hardest.
What Are The Penalties For Not Complying?
In the immediate future, you're going to be seeing inspections and arrests, not because of 'illegal' content, but because webmasters and stores don't have the records because they always thought that it was and should be the producer's job to make sure that the models are over 18 years of age. Violation of 18 U.S.C. 2257 is good for up to 10 years in federal prison... per violation!
Example
Below is a very small scale of what this will look like. Imagine that it is for one video with six models in it. All six of the model's personal information, home address, real name, and picture of their ID has to be on file with every single store or individual who sells that video. Now, imagine that each store who carries hundreds of videos has the burden to have all of those files for each model in every video they carry!
This isn't just for retailers either... this is for anyone displaying such pictures on their web site, etc.! So what happens if you don't comply? Well, you can go to jail! Yep, that is right... even if a producer has proof that the models were over 18 years of age and no minors were involved... if you do not have the paperwork and you display the photographs or video or sell them... you are now breaking the law.
What harm has been committed here is beyond me. Why we now have to go to the trouble of proving that all the videos that we carry are of models of 18 years of age or older by having those model's Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257 forms on file is truly a conservative agenda to make the adult industry fight to stay alive.
The Real Motivation Is Not Protecting Kids
This is clearly not about protecting minors. If the Department of Justice really wanted to protect minors they would simply have producers of pictures and video, etc. provide documentation directly to them in a federal database proving the models in film or photographs are adults. Simple enough right?
It would work well this way, because everything would have to be registered with them and if it wasn't then they could easily check. However, the REAL MOTIVATION is to shut down adult retailers and you can bet they have a list of companies they are going to start with... and you can also bet that getting access to any kind of sexual content will be increasingly difficult as the the DOJ continues to take away the freedoms of Americans.
This is an attack, we are back to the dark ages of witch hunts and instead of burning innocent people at the stake they are putting them in jail and ripping apart their businesses and families.
Why is sexuality so terrifying in this day and age? Why is masturbation and nudity seen as something that is listed right beside beastiliaty and child molestation? Have people absolutely lost their minds? They are so different than one another. It is like comparing someone who has a normal sleep pattern to someone who has narcolepsy. One is normal, one is an illness!
Over fifty percent of the web sites out there will most likely be devastated because they're carrying content, either thumbnails or streaming or fixed photos that they have no records for and they will be at risk to get 10 years in the slammer for it.
Breach Of Confidentiality
This does not even mention the incredible breach of confidentiality that is going on here. The models have to provide their home address, real names and photos of their ID cards to all of these retailers, which in turn basically makes it public information!?! That is absurd. Do you know how many psychos want to track down models in the adult industry and now we are having to pass around their real names and home address!?!
Making It Very Hard To Sell Videos Or Show Pictures
This new law is requiring stores like ours to have to track down producers and ask them for the paperwork on all of their models in order to sell their video. Until we have that paperwork on file, we cannot show the images online or sell them without breaking the law. It is evident that the US is becoming less and less of a free democracy making it more and more difficult for adults to enjoy and be educated on the basic human right of sexuality.
The Free Speech Coalition Are Fighting This!
Now that the regulations have been published, FSC (Free Speech Coalition) will go into federal district court to seek an injunction on behalf of its members. FSC plans two lawsuits, led by premiere First Amendment attorneys, one to be filed on the West Coast by H. Louis Sirkin, and the other by Paul Cambria on the East Coast.
The DOJ has amended some requirements from its original proposal, but in many areas the final version is unbending, making compliance extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Will They Win?
Right now, it really does not look good. The FSC may make a dent in some minor changes, but overall this ridiculous law looks like it will be around to stomp on the sexual freedoms of all Americans.
What Will Become Of Our Company & Products
With such a conservative, anti-sex government right now it is hard to predict the future. While we may have to discontinue selling some of our videos until we can find the producers to get the necessary paperwork on each of the models in those videos, we will do our best to keep our current selection of videos available as well as new releases.
However, what you may see happen is that we like many companies may be unable to secure some of the proper release forms on some of the older videos as the producers may be impossible to find... so if you want a Better Sex Videos from our site, now would be the time to buy it as we may not be able to offer it down the road.
What Can You Do?
Join the Free Speech Coalition and find out more about what is going on and what you can do through their web site! In the meantime, stay tuned to our site for updates and know that we intend to stand up for your sexual health and education rights.
=================================================
posted by:
|
Vancouver
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Sun, June 5, 2005 - 6:20 PMYep. The whole thing is a nightmare. The adult industry is in a lot of turmoil about this. I've read the new ruling, and I've come to the conclusion that there is no way anyone can completely comply with this law. There are too many vague rules and definitions. If the DOJ wants to take you to court they will.
The FSC lawyers have said the ruling is an attack on free speech and the rule of law because it automatically assumes that you are a child pornographer, and the onus of proof is on YOU to prove otherwise, to a ridiculous, burdensome extent.
Guilty until proven innocent. -
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Sun, June 5, 2005 - 6:42 PMdoes anyone know what the general concensus is for producers. are they actually sending out this private information or planning to? things like current addresses and aliases and stuff, that strikes me as being really unsafe for the women and men who are in the porn.
-
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Sun, June 5, 2005 - 11:02 PMRobin, you're absolutely right -- this poses a huge threat to the privacy and safety of the models.
Unfortunately, the DOJ lawsuits have already begun, according to a friend of mine who runs a lot of "cam girl" sites.
Land of the free, my ass.
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Sun, June 5, 2005 - 11:05 PMSome content providers have previously licenced content with the documents scanned and included, but not all of them. It's a dilemma because in order to comply with the new ruling content producers will probably violate existing privacy laws.
It's my hope that the whole thing is struck down by a higher court.
-
-
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Mon, June 6, 2005 - 6:22 AMthis post is from a journalist friend ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The U.S.C. referenced in this posting stands for U.S. Code. This is a codification of LAWS, which means Acts of Congress that have been signed by the president (or that had a veto overridden).
According to the Government Printing Office:
The U.S. Code does not include regulations issued by executive branch agencies, decisions of the Federal courts, treaties, or laws enacted by State or local governments. Regulations issued by executive branch agencies are available in the Code of Federal Regulations. Proposed and recently adopted regulations may be found in the Federal Register.
www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/about.html
So the Department of Justice can't modify 2257 itself, although it can issue regulations to implement it.
The DOJ has always defined two kinds of producers: "Primary producers" (the lucky bastards who take the dirty pictures) and "secondary producers." The latter category includes book PUBLISHERS and websites, but it specifically excludes distributors. So your local dirty bookstore is free to distribute whatever it can buy, but the people who put together the publications have to have the info on record. Since they'd have to have model releases anyway, this isn't really that big of a deal.
Here's a rundown of the proposed changes to the DOJ regulations:
my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/225...les5.24.05.htm
-
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Thu, June 9, 2005 - 12:36 PMthe first official casualty?
www.fleshbot.com/sex/gay/f...107224.php
"Have the new 2257 regulations already scored their first casualty? A reader writes this morning to alert to us to a notice on the website for the long-running gay BDSM magazine Bound and Gagged: “As of June 23, new federal regulation under the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988 will impose record-keeping and inspection requirements for ‘adult’ photographs that will be virtually impossible for us to comply with. Failure to comply is punishable by fine or imprisonment. We are discontinuing our business operations because we do not currently have the resources to comply with these new federal regulations.” Whether or not this is an isolated incident or an opening salvo in an all-out war on porn remains to be seen; in the meantime, you have two weeks to take advantage of B&G’s closeout sale on videos and back issues." -
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Thu, June 9, 2005 - 7:32 PM"this isn't really that big of a deal"
WRONG
This new ruling is a huge deal for the online porn business.
Here's how the 2257 rules have worked previously:
Photographers and content providers ("primary producers") took the photos/movies, and they kept all the documentation that the models were over 18, including drivers licences etc.
Webmasters ("secondary producers") would buy/licence that content and use it on their sites. They would have a statement on their sites re 2257 that referred the DOJ to the people who originally produced the photos/movies.
That way, the only people who had the private details of models were the content providers. The people who originally dealt with the models were the ones responsible for ensuring they were legal.
NOW:
The new ruling says that all webmasters must now possess the photo IDs of the models for every single one of their photos/movies/DVD boxcovers, for every site they own, or have owned, since July 1995
On top of possessing that private information, they must build a database which cross references who the model is, any aliases, their home address, DOB, with every website where the photo is used, and copies must be kept of each photo/movie/streaming webcam (which may involve terabytes of hdd space in some cases).
Webmasters must also post their business address on the internet (and a lot of people work from home) and be available at least 20 hrs a week in case the DOJ decide to drop in and search the place without a warrant.
So this means that content providers are faced with the prospect of handing out model IDs to thousands of people they don't really know. Webmasters - many women with children - are faced with the prospect of posting their home address on the web so any stalker can drop by.
And as I said, the ruling assumes you are a child pornographer until you can prove you aren't - via a a huge database - and if you make a clerical error, it's 5 years in jail.
This is a major MAJOR attack on privacy and free speech.
Then there's the fact that the ruling is badly worded, so much of it is vague that even the lawyers can't decide what it means...
I've been looking at my existing content, trying to work out what "lascivious display of the genitals" means and measuring the angles of erections... it's insane.
Someone will be arrested, the whole thing will be thrashed out in court, and hopefully it will be struck down.
My thoughts.
I should also add the standard disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer :) -
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Fri, June 10, 2005 - 6:07 PMmy pal Gram has this nice bit on his site:
"How to Understand the Personal Identification Documents Requirement Under Section 2257 and Its Newly Promulgated Implementing Regulations."
www.gramponante.com/GPtext/o...2257a.htm -
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Tue, June 14, 2005 - 12:00 PMwow...I've missed out on all this discussion
shiiiit -
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Tue, June 14, 2005 - 8:08 PMHere's a new article on it:
www.fleshbot.com/sex/strai...107875.php
"AVN’s Mark Kernes makes a convincing argument that the US Department of Justice’s new 2257 regulations are less about protecting children from pornographic exploitation than (surprise!) regulating porn businesses into logistical unfeasability, citing the law’s ultimately unenforceable nature and evidence that the mainstream adult industry has already done a commendable job regulating itself in the past as far as utilizing underage performers is concerned: 'Does it sound as if the 2257 statute can possibly accomplish the purpose for which it is allegedly intended?' We’ll know after June 23 when the statute goes into effect whether it does or not."
-
-
-
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Fri, June 17, 2005 - 11:12 PMUgh, we've been in a tizzy the last few days trying to get our database up and ready for inspection... my boss has been freakin (understandably so) and all of us have been working like mad to be prepared.
check out our boys at www.StraightCollegeMen.com... it's a rough job, but somebody's gotta do it :) -
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Sat, June 18, 2005 - 1:43 PMYUM!!! Food fights between horny, real-looking guys -- so hot!
Good luck with your database; I hear the legal challenges to this insane law are already being filed, so there's hope!
-
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Sun, June 19, 2005 - 2:12 AMI've been doing more reading and this new interpretation is crazy. Not allowing for people with ID issued by foreign governtments, even passports, how totally crazy.
Does anyone know if this law extends to artistic or educational work that uses sexually explicit imagery? For instance, safer sex material, or a feminist art piece showing images of masturbating women?
-
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Sun, June 19, 2005 - 3:17 PMThat is a concern, indeed. Art/Porn is never an easy dividing line and it will probably be left to the discretions of the Attorney General's office.
However, the ACLU should have their people ready with court ordered injunctions until the matter is resolved in the courts.
-
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 11:13 AMUpdates:
I had a phone conversation yesterday with my best pal Thomas Roche who just started up as the editor of Eros Zine (www.eros-ezine.com/top.htm), and told me he spent the whole fucking day having to go through all of their gallery archives trying to determine if a sex act was being depicted in each photo: "Is she pinching her nipple, or just holding it? Because if she's pinching it, they're gonna say it's a sex act. Is that bottom red from a sunburn or a spanking...? FUCK!"
My friends at rotten.com have had to shut down two of their sites, but put up excellent protests -- they've done a lot of work around first amendment rights. Be sure to read all the resder comments and responses:
www.boingboing.net/2005/06/...ping.html
Today on AVN, this is more gossip than reportage, but still:
www.avn.com/index.php
An article on impact on gay sites; interesting to note that anything before 1995 is exempt:
www.adultfyi.com/read.aspx
Forbes article:
www.forbes.com/services/2...23porn.html -
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 11:19 AM -
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 2:50 PMthank you so much for all your work and posts on this violet/blue!
-robin
-
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 9:48 PMThe Free Speech Coalition made a deal with the DOJ which protects only their members. This means that it's open season on non-FSC members, and many webmasters are questioning the legality of it. How can you have people being prosecuted when others are exempt?
What's disturbing also is that it seems as though the FSC looks like they're trying to plea bargain rather than fight these rules.
A lot of adult webmasters are angry because people had assumed the FSC was fighting for everyone, and so there hasn't been any other legal challenges.
The way the whole thing has been presented to the press has been mishandled. AP reported that evil webmasters were being lazy and just didn't want to keep records and thus were encouraging ch1ld pr0n. And naturally that's just what the DOJ wants them to say.
As an Australian I find the whole thing frustrating because this isn't really my fight. I didn't get to vote for this idiot government but what they're doing is affecting me. :( -
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 10:33 PMMs Naughty, you're absolutely right, because this whole fucking thing stinks from all angles, and reeks of hypocrisy from everyone.
First of all, this thing will be very difficult and expensive for the gov't to persue prosecute. Nearly impossible, really. Not to mention that they, as usual, think they're the only ones in the world -- what about all the other sites in the world?
Next, the "deal" with the FSC is so shady it's unbeleivable. They're fuckers for selling everyone else up the river -- so typical from an industry that refuses to acknowledge indy and outsider porn. In the US, if you want to get your pr0n into stores, you have a small network of distributors to choose from that are basically owned by all the same people; they own all the stores in one way or another, in a broken-up network (read Reefer Madness to understand the history of how this came about). This is why distributors have the power to determine the overall content in the pr0n business -- why there is a "formula" of sex acts, etc. I'll wager there's a connection in there somewhere, resulting in a plea deal for few, and not all.
Think about it. Think about who stands to get really rich from this legislation. Small porn sites who can't afford the threat of a legal battle are dropping like flies, but the big guys who can consume the time and staff to jump through the hoops -- they'll stay around and get very very rich from the competition dying off. Think they're FSC members?
And the press, well journalism is a fucking joke these days, especially when it comes to healthy attitudes about sex and pr0n. 90% of all talk radio shows in the US are republican-conservative; right-wing nutbag Rupert Murdoch owns more media and publishing outlets than should be legal, including Fox news. Though I have to say I'm not surprised that the way the adult POV has been presented to the press was mishandled. Fortunately the site I work for, Fleshbot, gets more traffic than anyone, and we're not in anyone's pocket, and are articulate enough to put a thinking human face on our perspective on pr0n.
My government (I didn't vote for any of the fuckers) is one of the most corrupt in world history, and they don't even hide it anymore. It's pathetic that the people in the pr0n industry -- who consider themselves "rebels" -- aren't doing the right thing and fighting the shit out of this with all the money they claim to make. As an American to an Australian, I'm deeply sorry. And as someone who wants to see diversity in porn, and porn for all, I'm disgusted. -
-
Unsu...
Don't try to get between a girl and her porn.
Thu, June 23, 2005 - 11:49 PMWe have to go underground.
We need to set up underground electronic railroad for distributing Art/Porn.
I see this move by the fundies, if it goes any further, as badly hurting commercial porn, but ultimately as instigating an underground porn exchange that may just be a huge bonanza for the world of adult entertainment.
-
-
Re: Don't try to get between a girl and her porn.
Fri, June 24, 2005 - 11:37 AMThis is awesome:
www.boogie-blog.com/time-to-...elony.htm
The wonderful Bacchus of ErosBlog.com just sent it to me :) -
-
Re: Don't try to get between a girl and her porn.
Fri, June 24, 2005 - 11:58 AMIs it a racket? Oh, yes oh yes it is. Look at the bullshit in this article:
www.avn.com/index.php
CHATSWORTH, Calif. - AVN received the following e-mail, which addresses some concerns from the adult community, after which AVN Senior Editor Mark Kernes responds:
-advertisement-
"My name is [Webmaster]. I found out about your organization from [Website]. This was in response to a posting I did about the new 2577 regulations three weeks ago. I went to your website to check it out and see if I could become a member. I couldn't do that online. I then sent several emails to the Executive director. That was two weeks ago. I tried calling as well, but the phone just rang and rang."
"Now I find that you have brokered a deal with the Justice Department for your members only! This is despicable! Especially since your office is not taking any calls, not allowing memberships to be done online and are not responding to emails!"
"What gives?!?!?!"
"I run a small retail website for the gay community. I was trying to set up further services on my site when my host informed me of the new regulations. I am angry that I cannot get anyone in your office to call me back! Now the only people who you are trying to protect are your members! So much for your ideals of free speech!"
"Please have someone on your board or in your office contact me please!"
Kernes responds:
"Dear Sir,"
I am not an attorney, but I believe I have some insight into your concern. In the law, as a general rule, an attorney cannot represent someone who is not his/her client. The attorney/client relationship is an important one, and there is much case law about it, but one thing is clear, that relationship must exist before an attorney can perform any legal services for someone."
"It is TYPICAL, in legal proceedings such as a motion for a temporary restraining order, that if such a motion is granted, that the order applies ONLY to the parties to the litigation. This is the RULE, not the exception. If you believe that is not the case, I suggest that you consult your own attorney; he/she will tell you the same thing. Of course, if the Justice Department were generous, it would not oppose extending the prohibitions in the order to non-parties, but as you may have noticed, the Justice Department has not been disposed to generosity for the past few years."
"As for your inability to contact FSC, if you had been reading the adult chat boards, AVN.com or myriad other sources, you would know that since the preliminary injunction which was agreed to by the parties yesterday (and at this writing is still unsigned by the judge) covers ONLY the plaintiffs and any members of the plaintiff organizations PLUS persons and entities who become members before 2 p.m. on June 25 — THIS SATURDAY — there has understandably been a sudden interest on the part of some adult industry members to obtain FSC membership. The fact that so many who could have joined years ago but did not do so are just 'getting religion' now is worth comment at some other time — and rest assured, I among others will do so — but it is that sudden interest which is preventing your being able to contact FSC, likely until sometime after 2 p.m. Saturday. However, you can still join the organization by phoning 800.681.0403 and providing your credit card information. If you are an adult businessperson, you would be wise to do so."
What a bunch of hypocrisy. And is membership free? Of course not! Imagine how much money they're raking in right now... Here are membership costs:
www.freespeechcoalition.com/indi_fax.htm -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Don't try to get between a girl and her porn.
Fri, June 24, 2005 - 12:29 PMThis is crazy, I had thought I was keeping up with this, but I never saw this FSC membership bullshit coming. Thanks Violet for putting it out there so succinctly.
On a side note I am reading a book called Harmful To Minors by Judith Levine - basically the government has been trying to shut down adult venues under the guise of 'protecting children' for years. This book is an education in itself and a must read if you have kids and you want to shield them from this puritanical bullshit.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Wed, December 7, 2005 - 7:53 PMhey, lookee- tribe.net just got hit by the 2257 brick. any thoughts, ladies? is this tribe in danger? -
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Wed, December 7, 2005 - 10:36 PM"is this tribe in danger?"
You know, I've been wondering about that all day today. Based on what is being said on the Tribe Ideas page, essentially ALL mature Tribes will be subject to scrutiny by December 20th and any that feature what Tribe deems "obscenity, pornography or explict sexual conduct" will be found to violate the Terms of Use and be deleted.
At this point Tribe admin seems to be in such a tizzy that even classical Greek statues and sculpture and painting by artists like Michelangelo and Da Vinci (the stuff that makes life worth living for me) are in violation of Tribe TOU if they feature any sort of nudity. Yes, apparently even long-dead, idealized non-photographic models from the Renaissance fall foul of Tribe's new 2257 panic. A number of members of the Tribe Ideas tribe have asked specific questions regarding art and art history and how the new (as yet unpublished) TOU will be affect art and history tribes and have received no intelligible answer.
Personally, I find the whole thing, especially the backpedaling and the refusal to actually lay a clear and irrefutable policy on the table, extremely disheartening and genuinely sickening, and despite the many friends I've made here, am just about ready to say "the hell with it" and move on to more liberal, less reactionary pastures...
MT -
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Thu, December 8, 2005 - 5:25 AMif i understand correctly, it's "public" tribes that will have the most to lose in regard to the new TOU ... private and moderated tribes have a bit more protection.
or am i imagining this? -
-
Unsu...
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Thu, December 8, 2005 - 5:35 AMModerated tribes that are public are up to scrutiny as well..
I just had to make my Girls 4 Men being with Men tribe go private..I have a whole lot of pics in that albun that definitely falls into the "sexually explicit" category.
But then...with the lack of activity in that tribe lately...I'm thinking about shutting it down altogether.
Believe it or not...the other tribe I moderate: SFBay Girls Who Wanna meet girls doesn't meet the Mature category...it's mostly event listings or "this is going on tonight, who wants to hook up".... even though it's a GLBT tribe. And incidently it was Tribe TOU that kicked it out of "mature" category...which I found kinda ironic...
They're definitely reacting to the new law... it's not something they wanted to do...cuz they know that they'll lose mega members... but it's either..
THEY DO it
or be forced to Shut down -
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Thu, December 8, 2005 - 6:21 AMor be fined and go to jail ...
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Mon, December 12, 2005 - 7:44 PMtribe wants to do this. i believe. i believe the fact that they implemented flagging at the exact time they are making changes to the TOU and claiming fear of 2257 correspond much too closely.
also, at this point several staff of tribe have said that private tribes will still not be able to host "pornographic, sexually explicit, or obscene" imagery or have text that violates the laws they have put up in their links. i think we will understand a bit more how they choose to interpret those laws that deal with text (since they are not 2257) when the new TOU is published, but both Wade and Warren have confirmed that private tribes will be just as beholden to the TOU as public ones in terms of "pornographic sexually explicit or obscene" "content".
it is a lie they must make ALL these changes or be shut down. tribe is partly owned by the conglomerate who own (among many many other publications The Washington Post). they are also owned by other large corps. they get infusions of cash to the tune of millions of dollars. this is not some penny ante little group of hackers sitting in a tiny room somewhere. if they chose to take this on they could. and they could USE tribe as a very effective fundraising and support tool, too.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Dept. of Justice Porn crackdown
Thu, December 8, 2005 - 1:15 PMGod, I hate the government!!
All of these rules aren't going to mean a damned thing to all the child porn lovers out there (the people that this law is supposedly aimed at)! If those scum bags were normal law-abiding citizens they wouldn't be interested in child porn in the first place.
Dawn
