Federal Government and law 2257

[Joe Wordsworth]

Am I the only one who thinks that the new porn regulation is, in essence, a good idea?

 

[wishfulthinking]

I don't know anything about it. Does it apply only in the US?

 

[Liar]

Give me the shorthand version, and I'll let you know.

 

[wishfulthinking]

Does it have anything to do with changing dot com to .xxx or is that something else?

I like the idea of .xxx - parents can ban sites more easily.

 

[English Lady]

I think Joe is referring to the new addition to US Law that Brinnie keeps starting threads protesting against. The gist i get is that if some site has a naked pic on it, they have to have the persons address and some kind of proof of age and keep it on record and have it readily available. It's not a new law, but theres an amendment to it that makes aalot more paperwork and places like this that have people post, well they should have all our addresses etc on file...



Though i'm not sure i've got a good hold on it or if i'm way off base with that.

Sophia Jane Started a thread on this new law and how it affects Literotica:

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=346588

There is (or was) alot of talk about it over on the Am pics board.


I've just had a quick look and found this:

http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,67869,00.html?tw=wn_story_page_prev2

and this


http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/22/rottencom_our_gaping.html


Lots of links in amongst this lot, but there you go


In essence (as Joe so carefully words it) yes I agree that it can only be good to tighten up rules to crack down on child porn BUT I'm not 100% sure this law amendment is effective or the best way of going about.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't see any way the new law is enforceable. It's basically a club, to be used as a threat to shut down porn sites because they simply can't afford the legal batles to stay open. So the govt can basically threaten them and they will fold.

It's another GOP dance with those you brung sop to the Far religious right. Another weapon of fear. And as Doc noted in another thread, it's already working, since Credit card companies are scared by it and are changeing their policy in ways that will hamstring many of the smaller, less well funded sites that provide adult content.

 

[CharleyH]

Am I the only one who thinks that the new porn regulation is, in essence, a good idea?

I am not sure it is a new idea, and I do not see how, nor why porn sites would not have this information on hand already.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I am not sure it is a new idea, and I do not see how, nor why porn sites would not have this information on hand already.

In adult feature movies, proof of age for all modles is kept on file at the stuidio. It used to be for five years, then for seven, the new law is for ten, which is beyond the records retion of any other corporate endeavour I know of. Credit requests are only kept for five or so.

In this case though, every model appearing. Think about it charley. If you put up an av of yourself, with your pants off, Lit would be required to have your name, your address, and your age on file or they wouldn't be in compliance. The same for sites that have webcams, that have girls posing for them at mardi gras, the girls gone wild sites that haunt spring breaks arenas and show wet t-shirt contests. Any site that shows sexual content would have to have a battery of lawyers on hand, just to make sure they were compliant and if hallenged by the government, would have to have the bankroll neccesary to fight it out in court with people who have unlimited tax payer dollars with which to harass them.

Hef is in no danger, or guizzione or Flint. Neither is Vivid video or Cabellero, or VCS. But your basic, one or two owner net enterpirse hasn't a chance. And that is who this law is aimed at. The small time people cashing in on the adult media appetite. People who got rich in the adult entertainment industry aren't going to be hurt, but people who are running small, one or two person websites with any original content are SOL.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Am I the only one who thinks that the new porn regulation is, in essence, a good idea?

Could be.

I'd be interested to know what you think is so good about it. As far as I can tell, it's nothing but harrassment.

 

[Liar]

In essence... Yank the AV feature, IMG tags and image attachment functionality from these boards, as wellas all stories w photos, and Lit is in the clear? Would be a pity, but not undoable.

But what I really think will be the legal definitin battle there will be wether a site like this, a forum or open end user contributed content catalog is to be considered a publication or not. I think a legal argument could be made thatv this is not a publication, but a media provider, providig specific designed blank sheets for individual private publishers a.k.a the members.

Like a copy shop or a real, physical bulletin board. That would make the individual submitters responsible for their content.

Either that, or unmoderated picture posting will be a thing of the past on the web. Goodnight blogging. E-bay? Web hotels? Bye bye.

Oh, how about if the images is on another server? In, say, Canada? IMG tags to external sources, are sites like Lit responsible for them too? If they are, Google, Yahoo et al are knee deep in poop too. I'd love to see the guv'ment go head to head with Google about their image search function. What we do here is no different than that.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

In essence... Yank the AV feature, IMG tags and image attachment functionality from these boards, as wellas all stories w photos, and Lit is in the clear? Would be a pity, but not undoable.

But what I really think will be the legal definitin battle there will be wether a site like this, a forum or open end user contributed content catalog is to be considered a publication or not. I think a legal argument could be made thatv this is not a publication, but a media provider, providig specific designed blank sheets for individual private publishers a.k.a the members.

Like a copy shop or a real, physical bulletin board. That would make the individual submitters responsible for their content.

Either that, or unmoderated picture posting will be a thing of the past on the web. Goodnight blogging. E-bay? Web hotels? Bye bye.

Oh, how about if the images is on another server? In, say, Canada? IMG tags to external sources, are sites like Lit responsible for them too? If they are, Google, Yahoo et al are knee deep in poop too. I'd love to see the guv'ment go head to head with Google about their image search function. What we do here is no different than that.

They won't use it on google or yahoo or anyone with a bankroll liar. They'll use it to threaten and intimidate smaller people who can't afford to fight it out in court. Eventually, they will fuck with someone who can fight it and will fight it. And that person will probably win in district court. But if Georgie boy and his band of renown can pack the high court with Roberts's and thier ilk, even more restrictive and poorly written laws will probably stick.

While I would prefer a conservative high court to a liberal one, I far prefer one packed with socailist pinko commie's in hiding to one packed with reactionaries of the neo-con stripe. This law is so poorly written, so vaguely pervasive, it dosen't stand a chance in any court but one where the holy crusade against smut takes precedence over the law.

 

[Liar]

They won't use it on google or yahoo or anyone with a bankroll liar. They'll use it to threaten and intimidate smaller people who can't afford to fight it out in court. Eventually, they will fuck with someone who can fight it and will fight it. And that person will probably win in district court. But if Georgie boy and his band of renown can pack the high court with Roberts's and thier ilk, even more restrictive and poorly written laws will probably stick.

While I would prefer a conservative high court to a liberal one, I far prefer one packed with socailist pinko commie's in hiding to one packed with reactionaries of the neo-con stripe. This law is so poorly written, so vaguely pervasive, it dosen't stand a chance in any court but one where the holy crusade against smut takes precedence over the law.

I know they won't use it on anyone with a bankroll. That's why some big roller with a bankroll and a backbone should step in and burst his bubble while there's still time. Can't AOL or someone like that file a suit against themselves, to get a court ruling saying the law is not reasonable?

I actually think that the outspoken intention behind it, targeting underage porn, is not bad, but a law that is not enforceable under reasonable forms is just a nuicance. It's like banning all guns, knives and sharp objects in general. Or requre that every farmer hugs his cows twice daily so that they don't get depressed. Nice thought, bizarre solution.

But then again, it never ceases to amaze me just how political your jucidiary system is compared to ours.

 

[amicus]

Being a one-way bastard in all things, I dislike any government interference with free expression of ideas in any form.

Child porn, whether it is under 18, 16 or 12 years of age is a touchy area. But to remain consistent, I must say keep government rules and regulations out of it, trust parents to monitor their children but look to law enforcement if a criminal act is committed.

That is a bit vague...I guess and surely open to debate or challenge but this 'extremist' wants absolutely no restriction on first amendment rights.

amicus

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I know they won't use it on anyone with a bankroll. That's why some big roller with a bankroll and a backbone should step in and burst his bubble while there's still time. Can't AOL or someone like that file a suit against themselves, to get a court ruling saying the law is not reasonable?

I actually think that the outspoken intention behind it, targeting underage porn, is not bad, but a law that is not enforceable under reasonable forms is just a nuicance. It's like banning all guns, knives and sharp objects in general. Or requre that every farmer hugs his cows twice daily so that they don't get depressed. Nice thought, bizarre solution.

But then again, it never ceases to amaze me just how political your jucidiary system is compared to ours.

In most cases, to challenge a lw you have to be effected by it. For example, the high court decided against an athiest ffather's claim that under god in the pledge was a violation of church and state, not because they said it isn't, but because he dosen't have full custody of the child and the mom has no problem with it.

There are tons of laws on the books that are patently illegal or just plain bone headed, but as long as the authorities don't try to aplly them, no one can challenge them.

The exception appears to be, when a law adversely affects the bussiness or personal activities of a group, even without it being applied. for example the so called partial birth abortion ban was challenged before theink was dry and long before it could be enforced, because it made illegal a practice that many doctors routinely performed.

this one is so badly written, you would have trouble proving you were adversely effected by it. It has so many exceptions and stipulations, it basically can be applied at will or not applied at will. It's a bad law, badly worded and dangerously broad, but until they try to use it, no one can really say exactly who is effected by it and who is in the exceptions category.

That could be purposeful, if you believe the A-holes who wrote it are that machiavellian or it could be simply because they are too stupid to write tightly worded and directed legislation. Witness the Federal and supreme courts snipes att hem over Terri's law.

 

[elsol]

Literotica wouldn't be classified as 2257 uncompliant because the law states sites that cannot reasonably manage content are exempted.

AV's are posted by the user so the administrator can't reasonably manage it.

The problem is as people have stated, Literotica would have to go to court to prove it... easier to play the game.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Posted elsewhere on the site by Laurel and Manu:

18 U.S.C. Section 2257 Exemption Statement

Literotica.com is fully exempt from 18 U.S.C. section 2257 because the site publishes text and audio stories only, not sexually explicit photographs or videos. Any photographs or videos offered on these servers are non-sexually explicit (as defined in 18 U.S.C section 2256) or totally non-nude.

Any sexually explicit pictures or videos offered to Literotica.com members are done so by linking to third party websites and are not hosted on these servers. Questions about 2257 issues for sites linked from this website should be directed to those third parties.

Specifically, the Literotica Cams, LiteroticaVOD.com, Literotica Toy Store, and the Literotica Personals are all managed and hosted by third parties.

All content posted on the Literotica forums is required to meet Literotica's posted guidelines, which do not allow the posting of sexually explicit materials, as defined in 18 U.S.C section 2256.

Because the Literotica forum is recognized as one of the largest adult forums on the web (12,000.000+ posts), and one of the most active forums anywhere on the internet, it would be impossible to monitor all posts in real time - just as AOL cannot monitor all of their users at all times. Literotica responds to complaints about forum content and randomly reviews selected posts to assure compliance with existing U.S. laws and regulations.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Literotica.com is fully exempt from 18 U.S.C. section 2257. . .

Just in case this information is incorrect, and since Lauren is the only porn site operator imprudent enough to publish my story, A Surfeit of Bard, I have voluntarily begun learning a new routine for my possibly soon-to-be illegal AV.

 

[Guest]

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

The sad fact is that there is no new magic law which will make child porn stop--it's almost entirely a cottage industry. Crack down on individuals who make and spread it, help kids who have fallen victim to it, shut down sites that carry it--all of that can be done under existing laws.

Historically, making a law that has no chance of success is a bad idea.

I wouldn't classify this as a law that has "no chance of success", I believe it understands it will have the opportunity for limited success--and I think it's already starting to show as much.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

The thing is that the internet is an anarchy. Unless every single conceivable nation wrote a no child porn on the internet law, it does nothing to stop real child porn created anywhere and distributed on the net and definitely does nothing on black market child porn rings.

There are many countries who sell domains openly and have very few or no net laws. Nothing is stopping your average extralegal child porn site from relocating there. In fact, child porn websites would probably already be mostly on said sites because they know their content is extralegal in most countries. Since we can't stop access and they can still broadcast from America through another country's domain (thus producing from another country), the child porn portion of the law does nothing.

It's only real use is as a scare tactic against porn sites who do not want to make a move and against the banks and advertisers of said sites who must reevaluate risk assessments.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The sad fact is that there is no new magic law which will make child porn stop--it's almost entirely a cottage industry. Crack down on individuals who make and spread it, help kids who have fallen victim to it, shut down sites that carry it--all of that can be done under existing laws.

Historically, making a law that has no chance of success is a bad idea.

It's a law that has great success already. It's scread the hell out of people who have anything to do with adult entertainment on the web. hasn't done jack to slow child porn, but that isn't the intent, that's just the public window dressing.

Ask Lit, new rules up for the am pics forum. Ask Doc, his BDSM forum has changed it's policy because the credit card company got spooked. as a half dozen sites that now have modified their rules.

It's sucessful because it's so badly wordeed and because the stated intent has fuck all to do with the real intent.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Arguments to the effect of "it only prevents America and not the rest of the world, therefore the law has no effect" are pure horseshit.

By limiting access, access is limited. By reducing availability, availability is reduced. If purveyors of pornography in this country have to now double check to make sure their slarlets and wannabe's are of age more rigorously, and this proves to be detrimental to the business practices of several or a few companies that knowingly shirk those responsibilities... then we're taking a step toward ensuring better protection.

The law isn't designed to police the world, and doesn't have the ambition to do so... it's there to prevent some sixteen year old girl here in the States from being taken advantage of by charismatic and manipulative "I could make you a star" kind of guys who are running businesses here in the States. The law is well designed to deal with exactly what it's supposing it is there for. It's not there to magically stop child pornography, its there to make it it harder to pull off.

It's not there to eliminate the possibility of child pornography, but to put statutes in place so that people who are inclined to take advantage of minors--with pornography--have a much harder time glossing over that "date of birth".

I'll be the first to admit, it needs revision and a greater deal of specificity with regards to which sorts of sites it wants to impose this regulation on. But, that is a far, far cry from claiming it is either (1) doing nothing or (2) only making things worse.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

They can still produce here, distribute through another country (with the pretense that they are creating it there in that country as these American laws would not apply or be able to access the records of that without great diplomacy), and be accessed here in America. This is what most fringe porn does, it is similar to a corporation using an off-shore account to laundry its money for tax reasons. At that point it becomes an international law problem and that's how the internet is built. It's an anarchy.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I wouldn't classify this as a law that has "no chance of success", I believe it understands it will have the opportunity for limited success--and I think it's already starting to show as much.

The reason why this new amendment to the existing law has "no chance of success" in reducing child porn is simple: child porn is illegal, and was already illegal under the previous law. Child porn producers are outside the system, and if they didn't respect the previous law, they certainly won't start respecting it now.

The only thing that is accomplished by the new law is that it constitutes a weapon against all legal pornography produced and distributed outside the great studios, especially amateurs. Will it stop a single child pornographer? How?

 

[pop_54]

Another folly of basing all the mainline reputable porno sites in the land of the free, we don't have such cranky laws over here, well not yet anyway... although I'm sure GW's pet Poodle Tony will lick his masters arse and fall in line eventually.

This crackpot law will have no effect on Child porn what-so-ever, that's already fucking illegal and has been for years... this is just another poke at the freedom of 'adults' to enjoy a bit of light relief and another method of taking control of everyone's mind as well as their body & soul... Another little statute that allows some spotty faced irk who was bullied at school to monitor and control all we do and think, in the process make him/her feel powerful.

Funny how the folks who seem to instigate and push these laws etc are always the ones who eventually get exposed for shagging little girls and boys, the religious nuts, the scout troup leaders, the child welfare workers, the judges, etc, etc.