RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

Lordandmaster -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/29/2005 10:40:32 AM)

Here's a pretty middle-of-the-road document about it. It's dry and technical, so you'll have to read it patiently, but don't forget that the consequences are enormous.

You know, sometimes there really are conspiracies. You haven't forgotten about Watergate, have you? Or the Pentagon Papers?

http://www.uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/USCountVotes_Re_Mitofsky-Edison.pdf



stormsfate -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/29/2005 10:46:51 AM)

Thank you for the link.

quote:

You know, sometimes there really are conspiracies. You haven't forgotten about Watergate, have you? Or the Pentagon Papers?


Yes, and that's what makes them so fascinating. I suspect you felt I was being sarcastic, but I was only teasing a little bit. I like puzzles, and when someone can connect the dots in an intelligent manner and prove that something is logically possible, it interests me. For example....I found Fahrenheit 911 a wonderful movie. Can't stand whatshisname...don't believe his theory is true, but it sure did give food for thought!

On the other hand, one of my favorite movies was "Wag the Dog". [;)]


f



Faramir -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/29/2005 12:27:49 PM)

This thread has wandred far afield [:)]

If democracy is systemically flawed - if the electorate picks shitty leaders, then I guess you and I are fucked, huh?

As to the 2004 election, I am onboard with Howard Dean - there was no voter fraud or corruption, although again in accord with Mr. Dean, I am sure that many states could do a better job ensuring that every citizen an easily exercise their franchise.

I'll deal with Adolf Hitler's superior (but deeply flawed) political leadership in another thread in the off topic area.



Lordandmaster -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/29/2005 1:20:38 PM)

I'm really having a hard time following your reasoning. Democracy does not pretend to pick the best leaders. Democracy picks the leaders that most voters want--no more, no less. Those are hardly the same things. The electorate does not have a magical ability to pick the people who will end up being the best leaders. They simply pick the people they want. I believe in democracy because it is the only system that comes close to establishing a government that represents the will of the people--not because democracy necessarily establishes the BEST government.

I also don't follow your reasoning about the 2004 election. Howard Dean said there was no fraud--therefore there was no fraud? How exactly do you respond to the document I posted?

You're just dismissing things without offering anything resembling reasons.

Lam

P.S. I'm more than curious to hear what you mean by Hitler's "superior political leadership." If you're going to take the line that he was a great leader but made mistakes, I don't think you and I can have a productive conversation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Faramir

This thread has wandred far afield [:)]

If democracy is systemically flawed - if the electorate picks shitty leaders, then I guess you and I are fucked, huh?

As to the 2004 election, I am onboard with Howard Dean - there was no voter fraud or corruption, although again in accord with Mr. Dean, I am sure that many states could do a better job ensuring that every citizen an easily exercise their franchise.

I'll deal with Adolf Hitler's superior (but deeply flawed) political leadership in another thread in the off topic area.



perverseangelic -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/29/2005 2:15:59 PM)

quote:


P.S. I'm more than curious to hear what you mean by Hitler's "superior political leadership." If you're going to take the line that he was a great leader but made mistakes, I don't think you and I can have a productive conversation.



I know I'm not in this discussion, but of course I have to throw in my 2c. Hitler was a highly -effective- leader. A horrible one, but effective. As in, he got what he wanted and made peopel think they wanted it too. Don't know that I'd say that's good.



Lordandmaster -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/29/2005 3:09:13 PM)

Well, I know what you mean, but even that commonplace about Hitler is open to dispute: how "effective" can a leader be judged if he plunged his country into an unwinnable war and caused the death of millions of his own citizens? The Third Reich didn't last ten years. So he was a failure by his own standards.

Still, I'd like to know what FARAMIR meant, because it sounded fishy. My point was simple: a leader's popularity is no indication of whether he is a good or bad leader. (I said this in response to Faramir's argument that Bush can't be one of the worst presidents in American history because he was duly elected and we are a democracy.) If Faramir wants to deny that Hitler was one of the worst leaders in history, I would love to hear his argument.

Lam



fillepink -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/29/2005 4:02:19 PM)

well, this thread has certainly covered the landscape. i have a few thoughts of my own. Akasha, i had difficulty following what may have been well-thought out comments because you intermingled them with personal attacks. alot. it is a diminution of what you have to say; i thought you might want to know, since you seem to have invested time and effort in the issues surrounding 2257.

i do not by any means single out Akasha for this debate flaw; it marred many a post. some seemed to serve no purpose other than to attempt to cause the author of a quote embarrassment.

not one single person dealt with the question of whether child pornography on the internet -- per force the result of sexual abuse of a child -- is a problem which could not be dealt with adequately under prior law. i saw hysteria over the rights of freedom of speech of our community -- and no concern whatsoever for the needs of law enforcement in fighting child pornograghers. is 2257 well drawn for THIS purpose? i cannot answer that; i am not an expert on internet law and criminal law. but ANY law which enhances law enforcement's powers against child pornographers would seem to me to absolutely have to include a duty on the porn distributor to prove the ages of the people depicted in sexual acts on his materials.

what would satisfy the angst of gay and BDSM communiies? an exception to the law and rule that permits child porn so long as it in a gay or BDSM setting? said that way; isn't that repugnant? we here on collarme do not want to be monitored, and we will not be. those of us who did not lose our common sense know this is true. what purpose would it serve? we break no laws; are the investigators at DOJ going to blackmail those of us who are not "out"?

not one person bothered to educate themselves on the explosive growth of child pornography; the difficulty of prosecuting cases involving the net; the children being brought into the "business" each year. all i have heard is "it might affect me" and "you are a ninny". well, i personally feel 2257 is vague and may fail a constitutional challenge, but that law enforcement needs more legislation and rules to go after child pornographers and get guilty verdicts resulting in very long prision terms.

if 2257 is not the proper approach fine; contribute something positive towards an effective and constitutional rule. calm down and put some of this energy into protecting the children. fillepink

[image]local://upfiles/72910/145137CA21BC46668AA646F864F627D6.jpg[/image]



darkinshadows -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/29/2005 4:08:41 PM)

Nobody addressed this issue fillepink, because this 'issue' is one that is probably agaisnt the TOS of CM - so if your post is pulled, you will understand why

Peace and Love



roger28 -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/29/2005 5:10:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fillepink
not one single person dealt with the question of whether child pornography on the internet -- per force the result of sexual abuse of a child -- is a problem which could not be dealt with adequately under prior law. i saw hysteria over the rights of freedom of speech of our community -- and no concern whatsoever for the needs of law enforcement in fighting child pornograghers. is 2257 well drawn for THIS purpose? i cannot answer that; i am not an expert on internet law and criminal law. but ANY law which enhances law enforcement's powers against child pornographers would seem to me to absolutely have to include a duty on the porn distributor to prove the ages of the people depicted in sexual acts on his materials.


The 2257 before was very much acceptable. Certainly the porn producer should have the identifications required to prove the age of the models and that was already a requirement of 2257. But with the new 2257, the producer must now give up all this private information to any webmaster who buys his content and the webmaster is required to have all that paper work, not to mention the web addresses of the sites in which such and such model is featured. This is extremely dumb, dangerous and violates the privacy rights of the models.

quote:

what would satisfy the angst of gay and BDSM communiies? an exception to the law and rule that permits child porn so long as it in a gay or BDSM setting? said that way; isn't that repugnant? we here on collarme do not want to be monitored, and we will not be. those of us who did not lose our common sense know this is true. what purpose would it serve? we break no laws; are the investigators at DOJ going to blackmail those of us who are not "out"?


They're organising a task force against obscenity. The laws that exist already allow them to go after cp and this is exactly what they should concentrate on.

quote:

not one person bothered to educate themselves on the explosive growth of child pornography; the difficulty of prosecuting cases involving the net; the children being brought into the "business" each year. all i have heard is "it might affect me" and "you are a ninny". well, i personally feel 2257 is vague and may fail a constitutional challenge, but that law enforcement needs more legislation and rules to go after child pornographers and get guilty verdicts resulting in very long prision terms.


Child pornographers are not affected by it. I can't imagine them having a 2257 statement on their webpages.

quote:

if 2257 is not the proper approach fine; contribute something positive towards an effective and constitutional rule. calm down and put some of this energy into protecting the children. fillepink


The children, the classic excuse. Let's put adult models at danger and pretend that this is the way to ensure our children's safety.



Faramir -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/29/2005 5:20:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

I'm really having a hard time following your reasoning. Democracy does not pretend to pick the best leaders. Democracy picks the leaders that most voters want--no more, no less. Those are hardly the same things. The electorate does not have a magical ability to pick the people who will end up being the best leaders. They simply pick the people they want. I believe in democracy because it is the only system that comes close to establishing a government that represents the will of the people--not because democracy necessarily establishes the BEST government.



You and I have radically different political models. My Political Model



Lordandmaster -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/29/2005 5:32:07 PM)

Our "political models" have nothing to do with this, Faramir. The issue is whether a democratically elected president is necessarily a good president. I don't see how you can insist that this is the case. And if you concede that it's not the case, then you have to abandon your line that Bush can't be a bad president because he was elected.

Edited to add: I'm still curious to know what on earth you meant with your comment about Hitler. Let me know when you're ready to explain.



LadyAngelika -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/29/2005 5:37:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
The issue is whether a democratically elected president is necessarily a good president.


I'd also like to add that if you have 2 bad candidates and one gets elected, the one elected doesn't automatically become good.

- LA



Faramir -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/29/2005 6:02:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

I'd also like to add that if you have 2 bad candidates and one gets elected, the one elected doesn't automatically become good.

- LA



Absolutely - my model only holds that democracies pick the best of the avialable choices. That's why I am all about the USA having two strong parties vice two weak parties - I want to pick the best of the best, not the best fo the worst.

Uhh LaM, did you actually read my response or just dismiss it out of hand?



Faramir -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/29/2005 6:06:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster


P.S. I'm more than curious to hear what you mean by Hitler's "superior political leadership." If you're going to take the line that he was a great leader but made mistakes, I don't think you and I can have a productive conversation.




Hitler As A Leader



ModeratorThree -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/29/2005 6:17:37 PM)

This thread has been edited many times. I hope the discussion will stay on topic and flame free from here out. Or, as ModOne pointed out, it will go.

Mod3



sub4hire -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/29/2005 7:07:55 PM)

Hey Three, are you feeling better?



Lordandmaster -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/29/2005 9:22:31 PM)

I'm not sure which response I allegedly didn't read.

If you're now saying that democracies pick from the available choices, you're obviously conceding that they can make bad choices. (I still don't exactly understand how you can assume that democracies will always pick the best of the available choices, but, forget it, we've been over that one.) Anyway, I stand by my statement that Bush was one of the worst choices in American history.

I think that means this dispute is over.

Lam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Faramir

Absolutely - my model only holds that democracies pick the best of the avialable choices. That's why I am all about the USA having two strong parties vice two weak parties - I want to pick the best of the best, not the best fo the worst.

Uhh LaM, did you actually read my response or just dismiss it out of hand?




ZenrageTheKeeper -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/29/2005 9:31:26 PM)

I wonder if museums hosting greek statues have to deal with this bullshite.

"I'm sorry you can not display the statue of David for you have no documentation that the model was indeed over 18 yrs of age."

Well porn can survive anything. This just means there will be a lot more hentai available. Who's to say if a live model was used or not in the creation of any animations online.

Or.. people will just have to use Canadian based servers to host their sites. I'm sure Canada would love the addition to their economy.



testlimit -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/29/2005 10:12:27 PM)

I believe what Fara's comment about Hitler meant, was that Hitler was an effective leader, as has already been pointed out, not a morally "good" leader.

He accomplished several major feats. He pulled the country out of a major depression, he lead the Nazi party as it insiuated itself throughout the nation, he lead them into a nearly successful bid for controling the majority of Europe and parts of Africa. It was far from an unwinnable war just because they didn't win it. There were several close calls...If Japan hadn't assaulted Pearl Harbor, American sentiment would have likely remained balanced enough to keep us from entering the war when we did, if Germany had developed the atomic bomb first (and they nearly did), if any number of things hadn't gone the way they did, you and I might be saluting the swastika now instead of the stars and stripes.

He also engendered the mentality in his party that lead to the camps, and the Holocaust. He was by no means a "good" man. But he was a very effective leader. Thank God things went as they did.

In any case as to this new law....I didn't catch all of it, but it does seem to be rather ridiculous requiring such a large paper trail be connected with online images. As to the question of this law protecting our "children".....i fail to see how it would accomplish this, it seems like just more red tape being thrown up protect our country's Puritan traditional values....You can do whatever you want behind closed doors just don't let anyone know you're doing it, and oh yeah Big Brother will be peeking.



Understudy -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/29/2005 10:22:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZenrageTheKeeper

I wonder if museums hosting greek statues have to deal with this bullshite.

"I'm sorry you can not display the statue of David for you have no documentation that the model was indeed over 18 yrs of age."

Well porn can survive anything. This just means there will be a lot more hentai available. Who's to say if a live model was used or not in the creation of any animations online.

Or.. people will just have to use Canadian based servers to host their sites. I'm sure Canada would love the addition to their economy.

In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . but I know it when I see it . . . "

The problem with the law is almost exactly that. Who is a publisher of explicit images. While I think declaring the statue of David is a bit of a stretch.But I use to think that my house was safe, eminent domain's recent ruling told me I can forget that. So maybe it isn't a bit of a stretch. There has been concern that a this all a big overeaction, well in light of the fact that restraining orders are now the equivelent of toliet papers, your house can be taken, reporters can't have confidential sources, cables companies don't have to share their infastructure with other businesses. If you had asked me ten years ago if I thought any of this was possible I would have thought you were nuts.

The 2257 makes keeping records especially of videos extremly difficult. After having several conversations with a couple of DMs for some of the dungeons I play at. They have decided that video will almost certainly be eliminated due to the strict labeling and filing guidelines for them. While the intent of the law is to prevent child explotation the law makes it difficult to do even simple things anymore.

So while I may be jumping the gun in my concern here, be grateful you don't own a house in the city of New London.

Zenrage, thanks for your point I appreciate it. Maybe when the feds are busting down the doors of museums someone will notice. Until then and maybe even then though I doubt much will happen.

As far as the hentai goes I know that there have been politicians who have tried to make implied sexual acts of those under 18 illegal including in animation. One of the last times I remmeber this being brought up was when Titanic was a major hit in the theaters, the media was very quick to point out that the charecters played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet were under 18 when they had their liason in the car on the storage deck of the ship. If the someone finds the act or the suggestion of the act offensive to their personal sensablities, they usually feel they have the right to protect the rest of us from it. Politicians are notorious for this. Remember there was a committe hearing a few years back and a representative was condemming the show The Simpsons despite the fact that he had never seen an episode.

I think if everyone moved their items to canadian servers the government would annex Canada as the next state just to put a stop to it. ;)

Sincerely,
Brendhan



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125