New Lit Rules

[LunarKitten]

Man is the D/s community going to be pissed.

Yup, cause they don't define what is "sadistic or masochistic abuse". Does this mean no pics of piercings (hey, it could be considered masochistic) or "day after play" bruises?

Thinking of taking my pic thread down...just in case. Mano doesn't deserve this kind of grief!

 

[LunarKitten]

US Law has become an ass. SImple as that.

*puts on flame retardant suit*

Yup...thank you Republicans and those that re-elected the shrub.

 

[LunarKitten]

As I understand it, the issue isn't that hardcore content isn't allowed, it's that both primary and secondary content providers must have records that verify age and identity for every image displayed. So the site owners must look at and make a copy of an acceptable form of government-sanctioned photo identification before allowing an image to be posted, and make the copies/records available for investigation at a certain place for the required number of hours per week. So a lot of site owners are choosing to remove the photos or take the risk instead of obtaining and maintaining these crazy records (which I think have a purpose in some cases, but the government is taking it way, way, too far). Here's more info on the law, including the relevant pages of the Federal Register.

Hopefully the challenges will be successful though.

What scares me is that full names and addresses have to be provided by webmasters to anyone who requests them. What if someone is browsing some site and thinks, "Wow, she/he is so hot...I gotta find them." All they have to do is email the webmaster and BOOM, they have sufficient info to do some stalking.....

 

[Ricwilly]

*puts on flame retardant suit*

Yup...thank you Republicans and those that re-elected the shrub.

Let us not forget those who didn't vote at all.

 

[LunarKitten]

people, this is not censorship.

censorship is what the government does to the people. the new rules are obviously not the same thing at all. can we please stop the "censorship sux" rhetoric, people? it cheapens a very powerful word, and one that is being misappropriated here.

ed

?!

How is this not censorship? It's either shut down your site or open your records to anyone and everyone who asks about the models. It's like saying you can print your newspaper in this country, but only if you print only what we approve of.

I'm all for shutting down child porn and beasiality sites, but I very much doubt this new law will affect them. They will either fake ids and creditials, or move their servers to another country. What this new law will effect are free sites, like this one. They are basically telling Manu to get rid of certain pics of consenting adults or go to jail. There is no way he can verify each and every one of us who posts here with age and address against what we registered with, so his only recourse is to ban those who post the images in the law... Come on, how many pic threads are going to be totally shut down because they contain blow jobs or sexual acts between consenting adults? It would probably be safer for Manu to just shut down the pic threads entirely, cause it's just not worth the jail time.

So tell me that's not censorship. It's just a different form from book burning, is all.

 

[LunarKitten]

Let us not forget those who didn't vote at all.

Yeah, I'd be all for manditory voting - but I'm not sure if uniformed voters would really be any better....

 

[Brinnie]

hm. brinnie, got a link to the law as written? my google-fu is teh sux.

ed

teh oldz teh new

 

[rhev]

This is what happens when ya vote for conservative republicans.

See, I voted for Bush. Im... er... was untill this... a republican. Sterotypically while republicans are conservative in veiwpoints they are also.... errrrr... WERE proponents of smaller federal government. Which I support.

THIS my friends, is NOT small federal government. This is NOT what I voted for.


*disclaimer*
Yes, I know that by marking myself as a republican who voted for Bush, even someone in a current moral quandry over his future political choices, marks me as a target to a lot of people. I ask that you please don't take the easy shot on me simply because I did vote for Bush. If you do.... ill cry.

 

[LunarKitten]

See, I voted for Bush. Im... er... was untill this... a republican. Sterotypically while republicans are conservative in veiwpoints they are also.... errrrr... WERE proponents of smaller federal government. Which I support.

THIS my friends, is NOT small federal government. This is NOT what I voted for.


*disclaimer*
Yes, I know that by marking myself as a republican who voted for Bush, even someone in a current moral quandry over his future political choices, marks me as a target to a lot of people. I ask that you please don't take the easy shot on me simply because I did vote for Bush. If you do.... ill cry.

At least you cared enough to vote Easy shot? Nah, not my style, unless you've really pissed me off for a long period of time

Or if I'm pregnant and going through a moodswing at that particular moment in time...which instigated my husband to start calling me "Ma'am"

 

[bisexplicit]

*resists urge to say something nasty about Bush*

 

[rhev]

Say whatever you want dear, its a free country. On top of that he was pushing for stricter regulations in internet child pornography. While I support cracking down on child pornography, I never would have dreamed that it would have gone to such heights.

 

[EJFan]

See, I voted for Bush. Im... er... was untill this... a republican. Sterotypically while republicans are conservative in veiwpoints they are also.... errrrr... WERE proponents of smaller federal government. Which I support.

THIS my friends, is NOT small federal government. This is NOT what I voted for.

yeah... some people can't distinguish between republicans and schmucks. there are bad republicans AND bad dems.

i always liked what bill maher said... "i was a republican when the party was a bunch of rich, old white men watching my money and defending the country." i'm paraphrasing but you get the point... the party changed.

 

[SweetErika]

Say whatever you want dear, its a free country. On top of that he was pushing for stricter regulations in internet child pornography. While I support cracking down on child pornography, I never would have dreamed that it would have gone to such heights.

Not a flame...a genuine question
Ok, but given what he and his buddies did in his first term and his positions on the issues, how can you really be surprised at this? I can understand if you're also anti-gay marriage, pro-religion, anti-choice, against stem cell research, pro-Patriot Act, etc., and you vote for Bush because you think he's the best guy for furthering those causes. However, I can't understand how someone wouldn't guess he'd keep moving things in the same direction.

 

[rhev]

To answer your question.
I am pro-gay marriage, pro religion, pro-choice, pro stemsell research, and pro-patriot act. I don't make the best republican in the world, true. However quite frankly, and without getting too into matters here, I felt he was a much better man for the job than Kerry. Quite frankly I wasn't ever his biggest supporter, but I feel that in general he has been doing a good job leading this country, especially in our time of war.

Oh, and by the way, I live in one of the "blue" states, so in effect, my vote meant nothing honestly. New York state always votes democrat, I knew that walking into the voting booth, but I still put my vote behind the person I beleived in more.

I will freely admit what my liberal friends say about him. He has the speaking capibility of a baked potato. But lets be fair here, after Clinton we would practically need Barry White to have any president look anywhere near as charismatic.

Quite honestly I still feel that as a president he is doing a fairly good job, maybe not the best, and maybe not everything I would personally like to see. But he has made some really good decisions in his terms. Of course, bringing us back to this current discussion.

The changes to the 2257 law. NOT in my opinion a good choice.

It is rather disturbing to me, because as I stated, this isn't what I voted for. I voted republican partially because I beleive in a smaller federal govt. Not a larger one.

/me wanders off to find his copy of 1984.

 

[Brinnie]

it's not Bush. It's the people. the majority is responsible.

 

[SweetErika]

To answer your question.
I am pro-gay marriage, pro religion, pro-choice, pro stemsell research, and pro-patriot act. I don't make the best republican in the world, true. However quite frankly, and without getting too into matters here, I felt he was a much better man for the job than Kerry. Quite frankly I wasn't ever his biggest supporter, but I feel that in general he has been doing a good job leading this country, especially in our time of war.

Oh, and by the way, I live in one of the "blue" states, so in effect, my vote meant nothing honestly. New York state always votes democrat, I knew that walking into the voting booth, but I still put my vote behind the person I beleived in more.

I will freely admit what my liberal friends say about him. He has the speaking capibility of a baked potato. But lets be fair here, after Clinton we would practically need Barry White to have any president look anywhere near as charismatic.

Quite honestly I still feel that as a president he is doing a fairly good job, maybe not the best, and maybe not everything I would personally like to see. But he has made some really good decisions in his terms. Of course, bringing us back to this current discussion.

The changes to the 2257 law. NOT in my opinion a good choice.

It is rather disturbing to me, because as I stated, this isn't what I voted for. I voted republican partially because I beleive in a smaller federal govt. Not a larger one.

/me wanders off to find his copy of 1984.

Thanks for the honest answers. I've always voted on individual views/plans on the issues important to me, so it's difficult to understand the party thing, but I appreciate the explanation.

 

[rhev]

Thanks for the honest answers.

Well thank YOU for the hypnotic avatar.

 

[silverwhisper]

rhev: i respect republicans who haven't forgotten small government used to be the mantra of the party. :> as a matter of principle, i favor that response myself.

brinnie, thanks for the links. i'll be reviewing them.

ed

 

[bisexplicit]

I can never understand social liberals who vote republican. *shrugs* Just, socially liberal ideals always seem way more important to me than being fiscally conservative (which is why it seems a lot of people are republican - although, recently, there hasn't been much in the way of money convservation). However, my dad still does pay for everything, so I suppose one day I could start seeing keeping my money on an equal level as say, a woman's right to choose - but, I kinda doubt it.

 

[rhev]

Makes perfect sense. I would say that I am defenitly fiscally conservative and mostly socaially liberal. (broad generalizations)

 

[silverwhisper]

rhev, are you familiar w/ libertarianism? that's often what those who share your inclinations generally tend to prefer.

ed

 

[rhev]

Yup, the problem is that our country is unfortunatly a 2 party system, untill I see some movement towards changing this unfortunate state, Im going to keep voting dem or rep.

 

[EJFan]

Yup, the problem is that our country is unfortunatly a 2 party system, untill I see some movement towards changing this unfortunate state, Im going to keep voting dem or rep.

i think the first thing that needs to happen to spread the libertarian party's platform is to stop shooting for the top rung for a while.

i was closely involved with my state's libertarian party chair for a couple of years and there was no real movement at the lower, local levels of government... everything was about federal legislature. i wouldn't hire a wal-mart bagger to run mcdonald's and i won't put an unknown party in a high office.

i agree with SW here... the socially liberal/fiscally conservative view is well cared for by the libertarians and that's what attracted me at first. to some extent you could say the two "major" parties are locking them out, but in order to change the system you have to take baby steps within it, not leaps and bounds from the outside.

 

[Ricwilly]

See, I voted for Bush. Im... er... was untill this... a republican. Sterotypically while republicans are conservative in veiwpoints they are also.... errrrr... WERE proponents of smaller federal government. Which I support.

THIS my friends, is NOT small federal government. This is NOT what I voted for.


*disclaimer*
Yes, I know that by marking myself as a republican who voted for Bush, even someone in a current moral quandry over his future political choices, marks me as a target to a lot of people. I ask that you please don't take the easy shot on me simply because I did vote for Bush. If you do.... ill cry.

Nothing personal, rhev, we all entitled to our opinion. Ya voted your consience thats all we can do.

 

[silverwhisper]

you know, i hate to say it, but brinnie was right. i was at the time under the impression that the site rules were changing but didn't somehow realize that it was a result in changes to law.

lunarkitten: my bad. :>

ed