quote:

do not know why you are even concerned. What the hell do you care? Do you own a porn site or something? Are you freely distributing yourself naked to every smut peddler in the USA? It is not your supposed freedom of speech (sic) being abridged. They still have the freedom to peddle their beloved porn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dark~angel

Speaking as an artist who sells work, and for many friends who sell online - this could open up a huge can of worms for artists. What if they don't use a model? I know I don't always - and so, I can't 'prove' who my work is of. What about people who enjoy posing for body parts, but don't wish to have their face plastered everywhere and are used for body art or photography? I know I have worked with people who would prefere to remain anon and earn a living from torso shots or footwork. It isn't just about protecting the innocent, peoples livelihoods are at stake.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Kenin, we all know you're a piece of work, but in this thread you've totally lost control. Stop insulting people who disagree with you. For one thing, they're right and you're wrong. It sounds like you haven't even read the law! Lastly, it's embarrassing--to YOU.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dark~angel

I totally understand - but the law is pretty open to being exaggerated by any extremists that might decide to wage a campaign on what they 'see' as porn.

Also - what about people who don't wish to be identified because they want to protect themself because of cultural issues? What about digital manipulation photography? It is basically providing a list of people who consent to images of sexual nature. Or even social. I know an artist who took photographs of mutilated men and women - this raised much needed money for a charity. However, some of those models would have been killed if it was discovered they had been party to it. I know it may seem that people might be taking an extreme view of this law, but to claim its about protecting the innocent from manipulation would be an understatement, truely. It's just another law to allow the powers that be to gain insight into peoples lives. It is an infringment of privacy, no more, no less.

quote:

The only people that will be allowed to have access to the records is the government

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

The way the Law works for printed media, it is just for porn photographs. you do not see them censoring art with this Law. That is a ridiculous stretch and a misinterpretation of the intent of the Law. In photographs you have to use a model, obviously. The Law is demanding that you keep records of where this model came from, how old, did s/he give written consent, etc.

quote:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

quote:

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ssilver

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

The way the Law works for printed media, it is just for porn photographs. you do not see them censoring art with this Law. That is a ridiculous stretch and a misinterpretation of the intent of the Law. In photographs you have to use a model, obviously. The Law is demanding that you keep records of where this model came from, how old, did s/he give written consent, etc.

Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed the "secondary producer" aspects of this law. You did miss that part, right, and not just misunderstand it?

quote:

Bitch all you want about this law - I've already written to my Congressmen about how I feel on the matter - it's bad law.

But the sky is falling shit is always wrong - if the legislature passes an unconstitutional law - it's unconstitutional.

'k?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

quote:

Bitch all you want about this law - I've already written to my Congressmen about how I feel on the matter - it's bad law.

But the sky is falling shit is always wrong - if the legislature passes an unconstitutional law - it's unconstitutional.

'k?

How is this Law abridging Y/your freedom of speech? To Me all it is saying is "Ok, peddle your wares, but have your bases covered". What is wrong with that? For the life of Me I can not see the problem. I guess webmasters will have to be more diligent about watching what shows up on their servers.

Besides, do W/we REALLY need to be inundated with pornography everywhere W/we turn? What exactly does it say about the individual if they have to post their T&A in a classified ad? Is that the level of class you want to stoop to when you are looking for someone? Do Y/you really HAVE to exploit some young girl on a webcam just so Y/you can get Y/yourself off? Is there nothing better Y/you can be doing with Y/your time? To Me, anyone that is running to the defense of the pornography is only justifying their own selfish wanton desires without any thought whatsoever about those being exploited (whether for or against their own will). Just a thought. I really do not see this as being a bad thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ssilver

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

The way the Law works for printed media, it is just for porn photographs. you do not see them censoring art with this Law. That is a ridiculous stretch and a misinterpretation of the intent of the Law. In photographs you have to use a model, obviously. The Law is demanding that you keep records of where this model came from, how old, did s/he give written consent, etc.

Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed the "secondary producer" aspects of this law. You did miss that part, right, and not just misunderstand it?

Ummm... Yes? I guess I did...?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

quote:

Bitch all you want about this law - I've already written to my Congressmen about how I feel on the matter - it's bad law.

But the sky is falling shit is always wrong - if the legislature passes an unconstitutional law - it's unconstitutional.

'k?

How is this Law abridging Y/your freedom of speech? To Me all it is saying is "Ok, peddle your wares, but have your bases covered". What is wrong with that? For the life of Me I can not see the problem. I guess webmasters will have to be more diligent about watching what shows up on their servers.

Besides, do W/we REALLY need to be inundated with pornography everywhere W/we turn? What exactly does it say about the individual if they have to post their T&A in a classified ad? Is that the level of class you want to stoop to when you are looking for someone? Do Y/you really HAVE to exploit some young girl on a webcam just so Y/you can get Y/yourself off? Is there nothing better Y/you can be doing with Y/your time? To Me, anyone that is running to the defense of the pornography is only justifying their own selfish wanton desires without any thought whatsoever about those being exploited (whether for or against their own will). Just a thought. I really do not see this as being a bad thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Kenin, we all know you're a piece of work, but in this thread you've totally lost control. Stop insulting people who disagree with you. For one thing, they're right and you're wrong. It sounds like you haven't even read the law! Lastly, it's embarrassing--to YOU.

Oh, your intelligence and thoughtful, objective analysis cleared everything right up. Thank you for such a useful contribution to the thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

quote:

ORIGINAL: ProScatman

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

People cry about the stupidest things. All this Law means is that you can not rip off someone else's work and you can not post images that do not belong to you or the model did not give you express consent to post them. What the hell is the big deal? Your speech is not being impeded. Get over it already. Heh. Holy.

quote:

I took the trouble to go read this 2257 crap! I suggest you do the same and take all the time you need, and perhaps ask someone to sit with you to explain the big words! There is no telling how or who will be targeted. The legislation is quite broad based, and has the potential to be selectively inforced; under the guise that "we can't arrest everyone at once"! And most everyone knows how many in government feel about our lifestyle. Remember how they got Al Capone? Tax evasion!

Your panties are in a knot for nothing. This reminds Me of the big huge deal everyone made over Google mail. They see one little detail and blow it all out of proportion, getting their noses out of joint and their knickers in a bunch. It COULD mean this so let us get all hell bent for leather and make a HUGE deal out of it.

I do not know why you are even concerned. What the hell do you care? Do you own a porn site or something? Are you freely distributing yourself naked to every smut peddler in the USA? It is not your supposed freedom of speech (sic) being abridged. They still have the freedom to peddle their beloved porn. They just have to make sure they have their bases covered, just like the porn magazines. Big deal. This Law has been in effect for printed porn for some time. Do you see Hugh Hefner selling off Playboy?

Man, you people really need to get a grip on reality, I swear.

The FBI won’t fess up to what new system they now use, but according to them, the new system is able to target just one user on a network and collect exactly the information a court-order allowed them to collect, for example just the e-mail communication. There’s some info about it here:

quote:

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10307

Note this part in the article:

[...] One controversy revolved around the FBI's legally-murky use of the device to obtain e-mail headers and other information without a wiretap warrant -- an issue Congress resolved by explicitly legalizing the practice in the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act.

Under section 216 of the act, the FBI can conduct a limited form of Internet surveillance without first visiting a judge and establishing probable cause that the target has committed a crime. In such cases the FBI is authorized to capture routing information like e-mail addresses or IP addresses, but not the contents of the communications.

[...] Other cases investigated under section 216 involved alleged mail fraud, controlled substance sales, [...]

Note the controlled substances part. That’s a huge point for people buying steroids through the internet, and should be enough to scare the shit out of paranoid users.

Also note that the reports they refer to in the article above only list cases where they performed surveillance without a court authorization. And there’s no report for 2004…

quote:

The way I see it; if this site or anyony on it get burned--I get burned! I care about the site owners here! I've been on this site for quite a while now, and the owners haven't asked me for a penny. I'm not a hurray for me--fuck you kind of person! Have you never heard of Carnivore?

< Message edited by ProScatman -- 6/24/2005 2:01:52 PM >

_____________________________

The objection to Puritans is not that they try to make us think as they do, but that they try to make us do as they think.

Have a good day, Mike

(in reply to SirKenin)

quote:

Your panties are in a knot for nothing. This reminds Me of the big huge deal everyone made over Google mail. They see one little detail and blow it all out of proportion, getting their noses out of joint and their knickers in a bunch. It COULD mean this so let us get all hell bent for leather and make a HUGE deal out of it.