So...this is pretty upsetting

[sophia jane]

There's alot of talk over on the Am pic Forum about the new rules for posting pics, and about the new obscenity laws going into effect.

I don't get into political threads very much, but I feel like this is important. What can we do, if anything?

New rules

Responses to the new rules

I know alot of people have Brinnie on ignore (she started the second thread), but I think the thread is worth a read, especially the news articles Brinnie gives links to.
This is scary shit, at least to me. Interested to hear your thoughts.

SJ

 

[AppleBiter]

I agree that it's completely fucked up. I don't blame Lit because they're just following the law and that's admirable. You wanna know what really gets my blood boiling (and I'm sure that this won't be a big deal to most people)? This means that you can show tits and nothing else. No dicks. Just tits. Where is the justice in that?

 

[Hulder]

I agree, it really is scary! I don't understand how they can do this, they must know that people will object!?! In Norway there's a law about "genetals in motion", so you can show a dick, but it can't move, lol. Stupidity is amusing. This however is so far beyond stupidity that it's frightening.

 

[TheEarl]

In the end, said Margold, American citizens will be the ultimate arbiters of their rights to access porn: "Until the public admits it watches this and allows itself to be counted, it deserves to have the stuff taken away."

Quite an amusing quote.

I wonder if we'll see literotica.co.uk?

The Earl

 

[cantdog]

I'm ashamed of these dweebs. What a pack of ignoramuses.

 

[Guest]

Quite an amusing quote.

The Earl

Indeed.

But we laugh because it's funny and we laugh because it's true. Painfully so, as humans laugh because it hurts to much to cry.

 

[Extreme Bohunk]

I'm waiting to see what the story is with this.
Someone who's usually dead on smells a hoax.
Also very curious timing that 'Brinnie' suddenly pops up w/
a link to the free speech coalition.
Not to mention some other brand new alts seem to have
appeared in that thread as well.

 

[Lovepotion69]

Just read the new rules. Now, can someone explain to me how US porn sites will be able to survive if this is to be reinforced?

Hm, keep forgetting that AVs and such come under copyright laws.

The law is stupid. Period.

 

[AppleBiter]

I'm sure there's validity to this, but I'm really starting to question why I haven't seen mention of this on any other porn site I've visited lately.

Edited: Okay, I just visited Larry Flynt's site (I figured if anyone had something to say about it, he would) and all there is is a disclaimer at the bottom of the page that says, "All models appearing on this site are over the age of 18.
18 U.S.C 2257 Record- Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement"

If you click on that, it says the following:

http://www.hustler.com/2257.html

If that's all that porn sites are having to do, then what's the big deal? I was under the impression that our great nation was trying to ban pornography, period, save for a little titty action. Looks to me like they're just verifying that models are over 18. Am I missing something here? If I am, someone please let me know. This is confusing.

 

[Hulder]

I'm waiting to see what the story is with this.
Someone who's usually dead on smells a hoax.
Also very curious timing that 'Brinnie' suddenly pops up w/
a link to the free speech coalition.
Not to mention some other brand new alts seem to have
appeared in that thread as well.

I'm not sure i understand what you mean. "Brinnie" has more then 4000 posts from what i can see, that's hardly a newbie. I on the other hand am, i think i'm the newest member to have posted in that thread (haven't actually checked, so can't be absolutely sure). Are you saying that i am part of some sort of hoax? If so, what kind of hoax? I'm sure you don't mean your post as an accusation, but it does feel a little like one. Maybe i'm being oversensitive, in which case i apologise. I just want a clearer understading of what you mean.


Hugs and Kisses!

 

[Liar]

I agree that it's completely fucked up. I don't blame Lit because they're just following the law and that's admirable. You wanna know what really gets my blood boiling (and I'm sure that this won't be a big deal to most people)? This means that you can show tits and nothing else. No dicks. Just tits. Where is the justice in that?

Should make a discrimination case out of it and see what happens.

It's yay to all nipples and nay to all genitalia, right? Technically, that's equal. But woman tits and mam tits are not really comparable?

I'd love to read the court transcripts on that.

 

[Extreme Bohunk]

I'm not sure i understand what you mean. "Brinnie" has more then 4000 posts from what i can see, that's hardly a newbie. I on the other hand am, i think i'm the newest member to have posted in that thread (haven't actually checked, so can't be absolutely sure). Are you saying that i am part of some sort of hoax? If so, what kind of hoax? I'm sure you don't mean your post as an accusation, but it does feel a little like one. Maybe i'm being oversensitive, in which case i apologise. I just want a clearer understading of what you mean.


Hugs and Kisses!

I'm not suggesting or implying that you are an alt, or part of a hoax.

It's widely believed that 'Brinnie' is an alt, or that some very very smart student is
using the boards for some kind of 'school project'.

I'm a bit of a skeptic, and the sudden controversy surrounding the topic raises my suspicions about it's legitimacy.

 

[rgraham666]

- 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.

Are we sure the Taliban didn't win after all?

Now imaging some dirty old (American)man drooling at some (American) woman in a burqa saying, "Did you see the ankles on her?!"

 

[Hulder]

I'm not suggesting or implying that you are an alt, or part of a hoax.

It's widely believed that 'Brinnie' is an alt, or that some very very smart student is
using the boards for some kind of 'school project'.

I'm a bit of a skeptic, and the sudden controversy surrounding the topic raises my suspicions about it's legitimacy.

I see. Thank you for the clarification.

I hope you're right, that it really is a hoax, cause the thought of a law like that being passed surpasses my ability to see the humor in stupidity.


Hugs and Kisses!

 

[Quiet_Cool]

My understanding of this is that it has something specific to do with the kind of site that Literotica is. It might simply be that Lit doesn't have one of said disclaimers. It might also deal with the fact that there's no system here to which the site verifies the age of those that visit here or even those who frequent here. If that's what this is, then most of the porn sites on the web will be unaffected, specifically pay sites that require a credit card (used also as age verification) for admittance.

Someone should look deeper into this before we jump to any conclusions as to what exactly the changes in the law state.

We should also consider, against what was suggested in Brinnie's thread by... well, someone, I don't know who, that Lit, being a large site with many members, might be a good target to set an example for other sites. That being said, violating in excess on our part might set Laurel and Manu up to take a fall that none of us want them to take.

SImply put, let's not get over-excited and do something stupid, especially when the facts aren't all in.

And if the reference to the new alts... If it was meaning the "Literotica" name, it was posted and stickied, which means it was laid out by someone with access to the site as an administrator, or at least as a moderator.

Q_C

 

[sophia jane]

I'm not suggesting or implying that you are an alt, or part of a hoax.

It's widely believed that 'Brinnie' is an alt, or that some very very smart student is
using the boards for some kind of 'school project'.

I'm a bit of a skeptic, and the sudden controversy surrounding the topic raises my suspicions about it's legitimacy.

If you read the links to news articles in the second thread I listed, you'll see more information (ie facts). Whether the changes and enforcement of the rules on lit is a hoax, I don't know. But there are changes coming down in the obscenity laws that could effect porn.

SJ

 

[Extreme Bohunk]

If you read the links to news articles in the second thread I listed, you'll see more information (ie facts). Whether the changes and enforcement of the rules on lit is a hoax, I don't know. But there are changes coming down in the obscenity laws that could effect porn.

SJ

Thank you.
I'll make sure to read those.
I've always tried to base my opinions on facts.
My apologies to any I may have caused needless concern based on my ignorance.

 

[Hulder]

Thank you.
I'll make sure to read those.
I've always tried to base my opinions on facts.
My apologies to any I may have caused needless concern based on my ignorance.

http://witchcraft.net/html/emoticons/hugs.gif

 

[Dhalgren150]

the constant battle with the Right Wing Evangelicals closet types wanting to erode our rights... in a cloud of morality.

nothing to really fear.... posturing for the political equity they now have earned.

 

[Lisa Denton]

I don't understand it because you can click a thousand sites and see everthing from kissing to anal sex, and everything in between. But on any intelligent adult forum it is illegal to display it.

Hell, its probably legal on a childrens site.

 

[minsue]

They're not new rules. They've been in the FAQs since I've been here.

 

[English Lady]

Earl - you can already use literotica.co.uk


I've said on another thread, read it. Read the "we'll act if it's reported" bit and the "we can't police everything that comes on site it's too big" it's just a nod to the new law a "we're doing all we can officers" thing. Carry on regardless say I.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't know if this is legit or not, but I do know of at least one publisher of XXX books that had to fold because the banks refused to supply financing in spit of proven profitability, citing the "current political climate."

The word was always there. The Bush administration was going to crack down on porn once the election was over, and that could be what we're seeing: new rules on pornography.

The next step will probably be a few select lawsuits brought againt domestic porn sites that violate these rules, not necessarily with an eye towards winning the suit, but to force the sites to spend so much money defending themselves that it doesn't pay to stay in business. The other sites will then get the message and fold up.

This should come as a surprise to no one. We discussed this very issue on this very board last summer. The Bush administration made no secrets about its plans to clean up the internet, movies, and TV, and that's what's happening.

Porn will still be available. There are plenty of foreign sites that post graphic porn who are immune to US control.

---dr.M.

 

[Songcatcher]

Earl - you can already use literotica.co.uk

Cool.

 

[Brinnie]

Literotica Is A "secondary" Producer

I'm sure there's validity to this, but I'm really starting to question why I haven't seen mention of this on any other porn site I've visited lately.

Edited: Okay, I just visited Larry Flynt's site (I figured if anyone had something to say about it, he would) and all there is is a disclaimer at the bottom of the page that says, "All models appearing on this site are over the age of 18.
18 U.S.C 2257 Record- Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement"

If you click on that, it says the following:

http://www.hustler.com/2257.html

If that's all that porn sites are having to do, then what's the big deal? I was under the impression that our great nation was trying to ban pornography, period, save for a little titty action. Looks to me like they're just verifying that models are over 18. Am I missing something here? If I am, someone please let me know. This is confusing.

It's actually quite simple,

Huster is a content producer. They have always been required by law to keep age records.

Under the NEW revised 2257 law (effective Jun 23), 'secondary' producers are required to keep 2257 records. A secondary producer being: "webmasters who display material not created by them."

As posters on Lit, we are tertiary producers and the secondary producer is responsible for our actions.

US webmasters that fail to comply with 2257 regulations can face up to 10 years. (per violation)