I'm confused

[tealsphynx]

Ok so I was browsing the HT Cafe and found this threadThis one
Does this mean that some of us will need to get rid of our pic threads? Man sometimes the US does some crazy things. This is an erotica website. why shouldn't it be allowed to show porn? Technically you have to be 18 to be here (not that the security on that is tight, all you gotta do is click a link saying you're 18, so it's an honor system) But still. Why is the US so against porn? (just a note I"m not anti US, I live here and I like it (mostly, I won't complain, but damnit I want to know when the election on this one happened, I want a revote! I never heard of it and I want to be able to post pics of me giving a blowjob if I wanna!)

 

[Private_Label]

Freedom of expression

Well according to the guidelines on pictures:

Here are the basic Forum Photo Guidelines:

- Legally, we can allow soft nudity, but under current United States law, photographs (does not apply to non-photographic images) posted on this site may not contain "sexually explicit conduct", which the government defines as:

- Actual or simulated:
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

- All persons in all adult-themed photographs must be over 18 years of age.

It's not so much that the US is "against" porn. Its that there is a portion of the voting population that feel the need to keep anything that is outside the mainstream away from where little eyes may see it.

Unfortunately, it is a case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease... or in some cases, the loudest portion of the campaign donation pool getting the laws they want passed.

Sucks? Yeah. But not in an erotic way.

 

[Quint]

Whazzafuck? Oh shit, there go the "Dark Romance," "Erotic Art w/a Twist," "B/W Art" (no BDSM images!) and others of the best on the Cafe. At least we can keep the "Anime Eye Candy" since it isn't photographic...

And Marquis, looks like you lucked out with your non-explicit thread.

Sigh...at least we can still talk about penetration and beating. Right?

 

[TaintedB]

Whazzafuck? Oh shit, there go the "Dark Romance," "Erotic Art w/a Twist," "B/W Art" (no BDSM images!) and others of the best on the Cafe. At least we can keep the "Anime Eye Candy" since it isn't photographic...

And Marquis, looks like you lucked out with your non-explicit thread.

Sigh...at least we can still talk about penetration and beating. Right?

For now, we can. For now. Enjoy it while it lasts. If pictures can censored, so can words because after all some "little eyes" know how to read. :/ (what a lame excuse for what is actually a powerful population control act by an increasingly fascist state--but knowing people, most will buy it.)

This new law strikes me as extremely unconstitutional in a lot of ways (many of which I listed in my 2257 thread a while back) and I imagine there will be lots of court cases pretty soon about it and those will provide clearer guidelines to what individuals and websites can and cannot do, but I don't have much hope that it will get repealed or modified. The current US govement has been whittling away at its citizens' constitutional rights for years, and nothing has been able to (or no one has cared enough or had enough power to) stop them.

The "little eyes" is no excuse. Parents, not the state, are responsible for what their children see or don't see online and elsewhere. If parents give away to the state their parenting rights, they shouldn't be surprised when works of great literature, philosophy, or other ideas that the goverment considers dangerous to its survival, start being banned. There is effective software out there for keeping kids off adult sites, and most commerical porn sites support it and advertise the products, like NetNanny, that they comply with on their front pages. Parents can always, if worse comes to worse and junior hacks through the software, take away the PC. Are they going to be banning adult magazines and dvds next because "little eyes" can get hold of them?

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hmm, well Bush has been vocal many a time about his view on porn, apart from the need to keep it away from young eyes. Basically it is the devil's playground from which we all need to be protected. As far as keeping it from young eyes, I am a parent and have long since been tired of this cultural push that we as adults should all live in a world that is limited by how it could affect children. As far as I am concerned, parents with children have a responsibility to ensure their children do not come into contact with anything they deem inappropriate, not that we all should live as children in the interests of enforcing this rule. There are measures aplenty for PC's that can and do limit what children can access if used by the adults in charge...there is also many risks that can never be covered just within the cmmunity and homes where children are.

Living in The Netherlands has been interesting because though it is seen by most as the sex capital of the world, it is also a culture which holds the rights and protection of children in high regard. They have been successful in doing that without imposing the same rules on the adults. The behaviour and treatment of children, very noticeably in public, is like night and day when compared to places such as the US, Oz and the UK.

Catalina

 

[Brinnie]

Here We Go Again...

LIT IS COMPLYING WITH THE NEW US 2257 LAW.

UNDER THIS LAW, PORN CANNOT BE POSTED IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM ANYWHERE ON THE INTERNET WITHOUT A MODEL RELEASE.


YOU CANNOT CONTENST LIT IN THEIR DESCISION, BUT IF YOU VALUE YOUR FREEDOM, YOU CAN SUPPORT AN ORGANISATION WHO IS FIGHTING 2257:


Please support the Free Speech Colilation, by adding one of these banners to your signature:

[URL=http://www.freespeechcoalition.com][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/Britney_Spears/468x60-animate.gif[/IMG][/URL]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/Britney_Spears/468x60-animate.gif

[URL=http://www.freespeechcoalition.com][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/Britney_Spears/88x31-animate.gif[/IMG][/URL]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/Britney_Spears/88x31-animate.gif

 

[onceburned]

UNDER THIS LAW, PORN CANNOT BE POSTED IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM ANYWHERE ON THE INTERNET WITHOUT A MODEL RELEASE.

erm... I think this is wrong. The regulation applies to content that is hosted on servers in the United States. U.S. law can not regulate content on servers in foreign countries.

The professional porn sites can simply move their content to other countries. Personal and free sites, such as this, will take the brunt of the new law.

 

[AAkasha]

For now, we can. For now. Enjoy it while it lasts. If pictures can censored, so can words because after all some "little eyes" know how to read. :/ (what a lame excuse for what is actually a powerful population control act by an increasingly fascist state--but knowing people, most will buy it.)

This new law strikes me as extremely unconstitutional in a lot of ways (many of which I listed in my 2257 thread a while back) and I imagine there will be lots of court cases pretty soon about it and those will provide clearer guidelines to what individuals and websites can and cannot do, but I don't have much hope that it will get repealed or modified. The current US govement has been whittling away at its citizens' constitutional rights for years, and nothing has been able to (or no one has cared enough or had enough power to) stop them.

The "little eyes" is no excuse. Parents, not the state, are responsible for what their children see or don't see online and elsewhere. If parents give away to the state their parenting rights, they shouldn't be surprised when works of great literature, philosophy, or other ideas that the goverment considers dangerous to its survival, start being banned. There is effective software out there for keeping kids off adult sites, and most commerical porn sites support it and advertise the products, like NetNanny, that they comply with on their front pages. Parents can always, if worse comes to worse and junior hacks through the software, take away the PC. Are they going to be banning adult magazines and dvds next because "little eyes" can get hold of them?

2257 has nothing to do with keeping kids off the internet or regulating who sees what on the internet. It has to do with keeping sites from posting sexual (long definition, but does include S&M, and genital shots of any kind) pictures of anyone under the age of 18 years old.

It requires that web site owners (and a list of other people involved) have on hand a written release, ID (which would have a home address on it), and real name of every model from every picture that appears on the site (including back to 1995). In addition, the site has to clearly state on the front page that they are complying with this law and the records are available for review during any work hours and give an actual address (no PO box) where they are. Department of Justice can investigate without warning to make sure all files are in order.

It would appear Lit falls under this category and would need a release on file for every sexual picture -- but that would mean you send one with your personal info every time you upload one. They also need to keep it on file for 7 years.

I'm not sure if lit is hosted overseas or not. I don't think the US can do anything about that.

But, a lot of adult sites are already shutting down. www.boundandgagged is one of them. They explain why on their site.

Akasha

 

[TaintedB]

2257 has nothing to do with keeping kids off the internet or regulating who sees what on the internet. It has to do with keeping sites from posting sexual (long definition, but does include S&M, and genital shots of any kind) pictures of anyone under the age of 18 years old.

I know. I wanted to comment on the "little eyes" issue too, as that almost always gets brought into discussions about this law whether or not the law has anything to say about it or not. Sorry if that was confusing.

 

[jasonlf]

There's an exceptionally easy solution: Move lit.com servers to canada or europe.

 

[flowerchilde]

Yes, move them to Canada, we don't have any silly laws restricting our freedom to see porn! Land of the free indeed! "Little eye's" may not be the main purpose of the new law, but I'm pretty sure it's in the thinking behind it. As well as the fact that these christian bible thumpers don't think that anyone should be able to have sex for pleasure and when you do have sex, missonary only! *yawn* How boring would that be??? Oh well, it just makes me extra happy to be living in the real land of the free! (no offense to those living in the states and any christian's on this site, I'm only talking about the fanatics that are behind Bush)

 

[Marquis]

Ok so I was browsing the HT Cafe and found this threadThis one
Does this mean that some of us will need to get rid of our pic threads? Man sometimes the US does some crazy things. This is an erotica website. why shouldn't it be allowed to show porn? Technically you have to be 18 to be here (not that the security on that is tight, all you gotta do is click a link saying you're 18, so it's an honor system) But still. Why is the US so against porn? (just a note I"m not anti US, I live here and I like it (mostly, I won't complain, but damnit I want to know when the election on this one happened, I want a revote! I never heard of it and I want to be able to post pics of me giving a blowjob if I wanna!)

Aren't you guys Replubican?

 

[graceanne]

I'm republican, and I think this law is rediculous. It's going to cause all sorts of privacy issues. I was talking to Netzach about it, and she pointed out that most porn models don't want their real names and address' out, cause it could cause stalking, and I gotta say I can see their point. I think that Bush is doing this so that it looks like he's doing something, and that'll get the republican's off his ass. It's not gonna work, he hasn't done anything that he said he would, and he's fucking up this war.

And out of curiousity sake, I'm not going to go more into this. I ususally choose not to discuss politics here, since I'm vastly outnumbered.

 

[Marquis]

Don't worry, we don't vote.

 

[Kajira Callista]

just wondering how long it is going to take them to go through all those pic threads.

 

[ShyGuy68]

It kinda makes me happy that I'm not a moderator in the amateur pic forum anymore.

 

[snowy ciara]

I want to work in the US office of Pictorial Pornography someday... I mean, some one some where is in a dark little room at the Pentagon with no windows and the lights down low scrutinizing these very pictures with a magnifying glass and a copy of 2257 in there... I just wonder if I'll be allowed to expense account my lube...


Seriously, flowerchilde, we do have similar laws there. They're not as restrictive, and they're rarely enforced, but they are there, and since Laurel and Mani are not Canadian, it could give them a whole new shit load of problems. Specifically; it seems when the laws are enforced it's done when someone (usually a non-Canadian) tries to bring it into the country from outside. When blue kat moved back to Canada, she had a whole bunch of stuff seized at the border because it's illegal there. Some porno novels, some pictorial stuff (only part of it was bdsm), a flogger (they only found the one) and a single tail were all taken. Ironically enough, she brought almost all the items with her when she came to the US, and neither the US or Canadian border guards had an issue.

I vote we put lit's servers in Catalina and Don Francisco's basement.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I vote we put lit's servers in Catalina and Don Francisco's basement.

LOL, we don't have a basement but I've been thinking we should dig one in someday...and we do have a couple of spare rooms.

Catalina

 

[snowy ciara]

signing up for basement digging detail How do I get a work visa for the Netherlands?

 

[Aeroil]

I think this new law is gonna make a lotta servers move up to Canada and off to Europe, so, umm, more business for us! yay!

Seriously though, the US government is just ridiculous sometimes, you guys should follow the Canadian example, get a government that argues with itself so much that it doesn't have time to attack people's freedoms!

lol.... I don't follow politics......

 

[Netzach]

I don't think it's gonna last, to be honest. There's too much money in smut and it's too freaking cumbersome for the DOJ to do. I mean, I don't actually think they are going to trapise over to my house every 4 months to check my DL's on my pantyhose wearing babes, but the POSSIBILITY that they might and the expecation that I post my home address on the net makes me take a bow out of the smut slingin' bizness for now. At least as it involves pics of things other than cute girls in corsets looking vaguely delightful.

If you are wondering if a pic is questionable, don't sit there and go over all your liberal freedom of speech bullshit grey area responses (and trust me I have many) look at your pic as though YOU ARE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. That's the best advice I found for editing a site.

Hopefully this shall pass quickly. I'm more optimistic than I've been in months.

I am all for keeping the under 18 out of the porn industry. I can understand scrutinizing the "teen" genre of porn (20 year olds in pastel underwear)

This law does NOTHING to help that. Why on earth would I need proof of age, address, and vital personal stats on a CLEARLY 30-45 year old man or woman? Unless the DOJ just wants to see who's taking clothes off and getting weird on the net. This is creepy in so many ways, and vague in so many others.

 

[sphynx's dragon]

OHHHHHHHH GOOOODDDSSSS, this kinda shit pisses me off. I see theses requirements and I see a gevernment attempt to make a listing of everyone who exposes themselves. Tha christian right wing have gone too damned far. I'm gonna stp typing now because I am thinking of is incoherent pissed off.

 

[Quint]

I'm republican, and I think this law is rediculous. It's going to cause all sorts of privacy issues. I was talking to Netzach about it, and she pointed out that most porn models don't want their real names and address' out, cause it could cause stalking, and I gotta say I can see their point. I think that Bush is doing this so that it looks like he's doing something, and that'll get the republican's off his ass. It's not gonna work, he hasn't done anything that he said he would, and he's fucking up this war.

And out of curiousity sake, I'm not going to go more into this. I ususally choose not to discuss politics here, since I'm vastly outnumbered.

Nah, I'm right with you on everything you said here! You must be one of those newfangled "intelligent Republicans" I've read about.

Netzach, I hope your optimism is justified. I haven't ever really dealt with prohibition-esque moves like this so I don't know how to predict how this will go. Best of luck with biz til it runs its course.

 

[tealsphynx]

Aren't you guys Replubican?

Last I checked my voter registration said "No Party Affiliation" So, no.

 

[Xelebes]

There's an exceptionally easy solution: Move lit.com servers to canada or europe.

It has been said before that this would be good idea as Canada and Scandinavia have some of the best internet infrastructures in the world. Oh and the lack of said laws.