Threat to Erotica from Government

[lynnh]

The other day in the NEWS section of Literotica the following story was linked. Frankly this sounds very troubling. Clinton signed this monstrosity and it now looks like the Supremes will OK it. Our freedoms will be curtalied. What is UP with America???!

Read full article at link
Supreme Court ready to enforce 'Net porn act

Posted on Wed, Mar. 03, 2004
Supreme Court ready to enforce 'Net porn act

DAVID G. SAVAGE
Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON - Internet sites that offer sexually explicit material may soon face their first real threat of criminal prosecution, judging from the friendly reception the Supreme Court gave Tuesday to a disputed and never-enforced federal law.

The Child Online Protection Act would impose fines and jail terms on those who post explicit text or images on a commercial Web site that can be tapped by minors. Though passed by Congress in 1998, it has been blocked by federal judges who cited free-speech concerns.

 

[sigsauerprinces]

gah...what the fuck. "that can be tapped by minors"..what does that mean exactly? that for my little website, i have to somehow set up something where i get credit card age verification just so ppl can read a couple stories on my site? who is going to take the time to do that? i know ive never bothered when a site says "you need to verify your age with a credit card".

what happened to parents wawtching their children, making sure they dont get on the net and see stuff they shouldnt? this really angers me..

i love the way they call it the "child online" bill, so if you come out against its like " oh dear god..youre against protecting children?"




is this america, or russia in 1975?

 

[catalina_francisco]

Well it is of course an annoying bill. The rule applies to commercial Web sites which mean that as long as you do not ask for money or are making money from your site you are in the clear.

This is also a USA law which means if you host your site in a country that is not located in the US then you can not be prosecuted, although this is not waterproof.

In any case the best solution is to put a clear disclaimer on your site, this is a standard one which you can use for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All artwork, literature, and photographs displayed on this web page remain the copyrighted property [FILL IN NAME]. Anyone wishing to use any of this material must seek permission of [FILL IN NAME] with a description of how and where the material will be used.

This is a site designed and intended SOLELY for ADULTS who are at least 18 years old, and who are interested in and wish to have access to visual images and verbal descriptions of a sexually oriented, very erotic and artistic nature. The materials which are available within this site may include graphic visual depictions and descriptions of nudity and sexual activity and should NOT be accessed by anyone who is younger than 18 years old or who does not wish to be exposed to such materials.

By entering this web site you are making the following statements:

1. Under penalty of perjury, I swear/affirm that as of this moment, I am an adult, at least 18 years of age.

2. I understand that when I gain access to this site, I will be exposed to visual images and verbal descriptions of a sexually oriented, erotic nature, which may include graphic visual depictions and descriptions of nudity and sexual activity. I am voluntarily choosing to do so, because I want to view, read and/or hear the various materials which are available, for my own personal enjoyment, information and/or education. My choice is a manifestation of my interest in sexual matters, which is both healthy and normal and, which, in my experience, is generally shared by average adults in my community.

3. I promise that I will not permit any person(s) under 18 years of age to have access to any of the materials contained within this site.

4. Each adult person who enters is bound by the specific laws that govern their own countries, States and communities and by proceeding forth you acknowledge and agree to full and complete responsibilities, liabilities and accountabilities for any such violations and release this specific site from such.

5. My interest in this material is personal, and not professional. I do not work for law enforcement. I am not accessing this material to use against the site operator, or any person whomsoever, in any conceivable manner.

6. If I use the service of this site in violation of the above agreement, I understand I may be in violation of both local and federal laws.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even better is at the end of the disclaimer to add the symbols of Netnanny, surfcontrol, or websense or any other of the content filtering solutions on the internet.
Net Nanny
Surfcontrol and then choose test site.
Websense choose test site.

 

[catalina_francisco]

what happened to parents wawtching their children, making sure they dont get on the net and see stuff they shouldnt? this really angers me..

i love the way they call it the "child online" bill, so if you come out against its like " oh dear god..youre against protecting children?"




is this america, or russia in 1975?

I agree. I get tired of hearing from friends who are parents (and deviots) how they support several proposed legislations aimed at 'protecting children' through the restriction/removal of even soft porn such as Playboy, which in reality restricts the rest of the population whether they have children or not. While I agree children deserve protection from pedophiles and the like, I also do not see that the whole universe need live their life as if they had a houseful of children to protect. Parents need to take responsibility, need to get over their own hangups enough to educate their children appropriately about sex etc., and need to realise the rest of the world has rights too and do not necessarily want to live the life of Alice In Wonderland until they die.

Catalina http://www.logtenberg.info/sex/tv.gif

 

[Kajira Callista]

From your own home computer you have options to block sites or view sites your children have visited.....why doesnt the government make the parents legally responsible to do so. I have two little ones who know how to get where that wanna go on the computer, i use xp and my section is passworded, you can make each household members stuff separate.. and in doing so you can also disallow access to alot of stuff, there are free programs availble to block certain sites, all i have to say is you have to be pretty damned lazy to not take 10 mins to protect your child,and then expect the government to do it for you.

 

[catalina_francisco]

From your own home computer you have options to block sites or view sites your children have visited.....why doesnt the government make the parents legally responsible to do so. I have two little ones who know how to get where that wanna go on the computer, i use xp and my section is passworded, you can make each household members stuff separate.. and in doing so you can also disallow access to alot of stuff, there are free programs availble to block certain sites, all i have to say is you have to be pretty damned lazy to not take 10 mins to protect your child,and then expect the government to do it for you.

Exactly....there are options which make it unnecessary to limit the lives of everyone....but maybe this is just another easy way to push the censorship envelope while appearing to be acting responsible and exploiting our children to cover the smelly trail of deception.

Catalina

 

[Bikewer]

NPR had a segment on this and similar matters the other day. Seems our astute Attorney General has decided to "pick up the ball" on the war against smut.
Let me see....Yes, by George, it's an election year!

What with homeland security, Al Quaida, bomb merchants, and drugs, I'm amazed that the government has the resources available to attack this pressing problem....

Here in St. Louis, during the LAST war on smut (Meese era), both the local prosecutors (city and county) were trying to out-do each other in clamping down on video chains, massage parlors, and the like.
Until the city guy got caught in a prostitution sting, and his office was found to be full of naughty movies he'd paid for with city funds...
Then the county guy got drafted into government service by George Sr., and lasted a couple of years as an immigration official till Bill got elected.

 

[catalina_francisco]

NPR had a segment on this and similar matters the other day. Seems our astute Attorney General has decided to "pick up the ball" on the war against smut.
Let me see....Yes, by George, it's an election year!

What with homeland security, Al Quaida, bomb merchants, and drugs, I'm amazed that the government has the resources available to attack this pressing problem....

Here in St. Louis, during the LAST war on smut (Meese era), both the local prosecutors (city and county) were trying to out-do each other in clamping down on video chains, massage parlors, and the like.
Until the city guy got caught in a prostitution sting, and his office was found to be full of naughty movies he'd paid for with city funds...
Then the county guy got drafted into government service by George Sr., and lasted a couple of years as an immigration official till Bill got elected.

How typical. Nothing more irritating than a hypocrite!!

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

Actually I just remembered. Some years ago in Australia, we had the opposite happen....a government censorship board guy gave it all up to join the porn industry and now plays a big part in production etc., as well as lobbying against the rights of government regulation of the adult sex industry.

Catalina

 

[sigsauerprinces]

Well it is of course an annoying bill. The rule applies to commercial Web sites which mean that as long as you do not ask for money or are making money from your site you are in the clear.

This is also a USA law which means if you host your site in a country that is not located in the US then you can not be prosecuted, although this is not waterproof.

In any case the best solution is to put a clear disclaimer on your site, this is a standard one which you can use for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All artwork, literature, and photographs displayed on this web page remain the copyrighted property [FILL IN NAME]. Anyone wishing to use any of this material must seek permission of [FILL IN NAME] with a description of how and where the material will be used.

This is a site designed and intended SOLELY for ADULTS who are at least 18 years old, and who are interested in and wish to have access to visual images and verbal descriptions of a sexually oriented, very erotic and artistic nature. The materials which are available within this site may include graphic visual depictions and descriptions of nudity and sexual activity and should NOT be accessed by anyone who is younger than 18 years old or who does not wish to be exposed to such materials.

By entering this web site you are making the following statements:

1. Under penalty of perjury, I swear/affirm that as of this moment, I am an adult, at least 18 years of age.

2. I understand that when I gain access to this site, I will be exposed to visual images and verbal descriptions of a sexually oriented, erotic nature, which may include graphic visual depictions and descriptions of nudity and sexual activity. I am voluntarily choosing to do so, because I want to view, read and/or hear the various materials which are available, for my own personal enjoyment, information and/or education. My choice is a manifestation of my interest in sexual matters, which is both healthy and normal and, which, in my experience, is generally shared by average adults in my community.

3. I promise that I will not permit any person(s) under 18 years of age to have access to any of the materials contained within this site.

4. Each adult person who enters is bound by the specific laws that govern their own countries, States and communities and by proceeding forth you acknowledge and agree to full and complete responsibilities, liabilities and accountabilities for any such violations and release this specific site from such.

5. My interest in this material is personal, and not professional. I do not work for law enforcement. I am not accessing this material to use against the site operator, or any person whomsoever, in any conceivable manner.

6. If I use the service of this site in violation of the above agreement, I understand I may be in violation of both local and federal laws.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even better is at the end of the disclaimer to add the symbols of Netnanny, surfcontrol, or websense or any other of the content filtering solutions on the internet.
Net Nanny
Surfcontrol and then choose test site.
Websense choose test site.

thanks for that chick, im going to use that on my site.

 

[lynnh]

Let's all live like 12 year olds

So many excellent comments.

It is so true that they use the "for the children" line for anything Big Brother wants to do in taking away the freedom of choice for American adults. Whether banning erotica, banning guns, banning this, banning/restricting that it is always: FOR THE CHILDREN.

Also a good point was that parents should be responsible enough to control what their children do online.

Wouldn't it seem LOGICAL that a parent would have enough interest in their child's wellbeing to ensure they did not read, view or otherwise engage in anything online they felt concerned about? Yet due to laziness or having the mentality themselves of a child they want the NANNY STATE to do all their work for them, raise their children FOR them in effect.

Erotica online, for free, has been one of the greatest blessings for me--flat out. Literotica, as well as other such places, have given me such happiness and helped me realize I wasn't the only one with one or two kinks. LOL.

Well I don't love BIG BROTHER, I don't want a nanny state.

Whatever happened to the land of the FREE and the home of the brave? Why is everybody so uptight? Why can Brazil and Europe have nudity on TV and nobody freaks out but Janet Jackson's boob falls out and the next we know the THOUGHT POLICE are in full march.

I notice at the top of these pages are links to some great anti-censorship groups.

Pres. Bill Clinton signed this MONSTROSITY and so I have little hope that a Pres. Kerry or any other POLITICIAN will do anything to genuinely preserve whatever freedoms I have left.

As a woman and a mother I frankly feel OPPRESSED by these censorship laws.

If I didn't laugh I'd cry.

 

[erotic_writer_girl]

children, censorship, erotica, etc..

Here I go again jummping in and placing my 2 cents worth on the table.

I have kids. I have three young teens. My kids have learnt to safely surf the net. I do have the added advantage of having two computers. One for me and one for my kids. My kids do not use my computer. This is the only erotica site I visit. My kids do not use my computer.

I do not use netnanny or any other service to supervise my kids internet viewing. Instead I use their honesty, openness, and intelligence. AND I use my own eyes. No I dont stand over them every minute they are on the net but they do so in an open area of the house where they can be seen from several vantage points.

I am pleased to say that my kids and I have an open and honest relationship. (yes they know their mother is somewhat 'kinky' but they dont knoiw the details) We have talked about every topic they have ever raised and I have openly discussed with them the meanings of terms which they have heard from their friends. This goes for more than sexual issues. I have talked to my kids about all manner of things.

I do think that chatrooms are far more dangerous than many other sites. My kids do use chatrooms and in that instance I do tend to hover around a bit more...My daughter (13 at the time) wante to chat with other teens. I decided that sooner or later she would do that whether I was around or not so felt it best to let her do so with my supervision.

She was quite taken by a particular '16' year old 'boy' in a 'teen' chatroom. The boy wanted to send her a pic, she was new to the net at the time and asked me what he meant. I took the opportunity to show her a thing or two. I gave the 'boy' one of my non-descript email addies to send the pic to. which he did. I took a chance opening the pic with my daughter by my side but I wanted to show her how things really work on the net.

When the pic arrived it was of a very cute 16 yer old boy, fully clothed. My daughter was quite taken by his appearance. Once I received the email with the pic I copied the email addy it was sent from into a search window and carried out a search on this particular 'boy'.

I found a profile for this 'boy' on a paedophile site. He was 61 years old and admitted to trolling for young teens in chatrooms.

I allowed my daughter to read his profile on the paedophile site and she was extremely horrified. extremely upset that she had been fooled by what she termed ' a dirty old man'.

She does not accept pics from anyone. She is more cautious in chatrooms. She takes what she reads in them with a big grain of salt. She readily uses the iggy button. So she and I have found a way that she can do the chatroom thing without me worrying about her getting lured away to harm.

It was the only memorable way for her to understand that on the Internet anyone can be anyone! We had a long talk about the issues of Internet 'personalities' and the things that can be found on the internet.

She has on occasions had conversations with her school friends about that experience and warns them about the possibilities.

Just anothe instance of guidance being much more useful than 'dscipline', 'punishment' etc. when it comes to raising kids.

EWG