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

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



Message

Faramir -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/24/2005 3:26:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: extrapale

My two cents on those amendments...

Faramir, what about homosexuals? They aren't enjoying the same rights and protection as heterosexuals.


Almost one hundred and fifty years ago America engaged in a shattering, violent debate on whether or not men could be held in slavery based on ethnicity. As violent and awful as the struggle was, slavery was finally ended.

A hundred years ago America had a vigorous, occaisionaly violent debate on the rights of women, starting with suffrage. That debate led to female suffrage, and eventually to equal protection under the law.

Fifty years ago America had a vigorous, often violent debate on the full civil rights and equal protection under the law of citizens in minority ethnicities. It has led to full civil liberty for all Americans regadless of ethnicity.

Right now, something that would have been unthinkable even 10 years ago is happening: America is having a vigorous, peaceful debate on the civil rights and equal protection of citizens with minority sexual orientations.

When I said: "America has 200 years of increasing freedom and rights enforcement, not decreasing." I meant exactly that - the amount of freedom (civil liberty) and equal protection (rights enforcement) in America has been increasing for the last two hundred years, not decreasing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: extrapale

And freedom of speech? We may have freedom of speech but the government has the "freedom" to censor us.



That's false.




Lordandmaster -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/24/2005 3:35:54 PM)

I agree with Faramir that in the LONG RUN, stupid measures like this one are going to fail, and Americans are only going to have more and more meaningful freedoms.

However, we're not there yet, and laws like this one are a major speed bump on the way. Before all is said and done, the law will be repealed or struck down, but it's going to interfere with many people's lives before that happens. Who knows, maybe some people will end up in prison because of it. I don't believe a single extra child pornographer is going to be caught because of it, and I don't even believe that the law was really devised for that purpose. If it were, it wouldn't have all the other provisions that have nothing to do with child pornography.

Lam



anthrosub -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/24/2005 4:31:25 PM)

I agree with the premise as well. When I first caught wind of this, my first reaction was something like "Well, here go the conservatives making a veiled effort to push their values forward." I don't mean this is the exclusive motive but rather one mixed in with other, valid concerns. Naturally we don't want kids being prematurely exposed to the darker side of humanity until they've had a chance to develop into mature adults. It's unfortunate there are people out there who take this basic concern and use it to block out whatever they find objectionable from their own perspective as if theirs is the only one that's valid.

anthrosub



Faramir -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/24/2005 5:23:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: anthrosub

Naturally we don't want kids being prematurely exposed to the darker side of humanity until they've had a chance to develop into mature adults. anthrosub


Not a biggie, but you have it kind of backwards. The ostensible purpose of this legislation is not to prevent children from being exposed to pornography, but rather to prevent their use in the production of pornography.

And by no means am I making excuses for bad legislation. The real purpose of the judiciary isn't to unfuck legislative messes - the framers didn't envision the judiciary running around behind the legislature with a pooper-scooper. The legislature should avoid crappy law-writing in the first place.




anthrosub -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/24/2005 5:46:14 PM)

Thanks for clarifying. I haven't read it in depth but what I did see gave me the initial reaction I stated earlier. I think what I said afterwards still holds in principal...that something we really don't want children exposed to (or in this case made a part of) is used to get legislation passed that furthers a select group's agenda. I'll have to go through it in depth now that you've pointed that out. Thanks again.

anthrosub



mantis65 -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/25/2005 12:51:24 AM)

That's why 2257 is a great testing ground for a much broader scheme by the DOJ. This scheme, sometimes called "mandatory data retention," would force all Internet service providers to keep files on everything that people using their services are doing online. Every time you use AOL, the company would have to keep a record of your chat sessions, what Web sites you visited, your e-mail, etc. Sound like another paranoid fantasy brought to you by the tinfoil-hat brigade? Think again: It's a real proposal that was floated by the DOJ at an April 27 meeting with various Internet service providers. News.com quotes US Internet Industry Association president Dave McClure saying that DOJ reps want to mandate, perhaps "by law," a set time period during which ISPs would retain data about the personal online habits of all their users.

That's how it goes. First they come for the pornographers, and then they come for you


this is in an article here DOJ wants to track more than just kiddie porn they want to know what you are doing online (for your own good of course)

http://www.alternet.org/story/22289/



Faramir -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/25/2005 7:19:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mantis65

That's why 2257 is a great testing ground for a much broader scheme by the DOJ. This scheme, sometimes called "mandatory data retention," would force all Internet service providers to keep files on everything that people using their services are doing online. Every time you use AOL, the company would have to keep a record of your chat sessions, what Web sites you visited, your e-mail, etc. Sound like another paranoid fantasy brought to you by the tinfoil-hat brigade? Think again: It's a real proposal that was floated by the DOJ at an April 27 meeting with various Internet service providers. News.com quotes US Internet Industry Association president Dave McClure saying that DOJ reps want to mandate, perhaps "by law," a set time period during which ISPs would retain data about the personal online habits of all their users.

That's how it goes. First they come for the pornographers, and then they come for you


this is in an article here DOJ wants to track more than just kiddie porn they want to know what you are doing online (for your own good of course)

http://www.alternet.org/story/22289/


14th Amendment, sec 1.



fillepink -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/25/2005 7:40:30 AM)

the thrust of the 14th Amendment is to restrict the states from abridging the rights of citizens which are guarateed to them under the U.S. Constitution and federal law. Internet law is not my forte, but i know that warrants have been issued that have required ISP's to give a user's real name and addy.

If internet law develops as wiretapping law has done, people can probably breathe easier. But if it takes on its own body of case law and statutory law; allowing the government to monitor sites like collarme for "possible" criminal activity, we do have a problem. Lots of freely spoken comments and scenes here involve criminal acts -- but they are fantasises. Who would want to be singled out for scrutiny due to a scene here? (Seems to me there are 1st Amendment freedom of association and freedom of speech issues as well).

For the time being i think we are safe; and i think the government needs more legislation and rules before "monitoring" this site could happen -- so at least we'd be warned. fillepink



[image]local://upfiles/72910/B3EA287F4BE14365A76AD3C9C14079F9.jpg[/image]



sub4hire -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/25/2005 7:43:41 AM)

quote:

For the time being i think we are safe; and i think the government needs more legislation and rules before "monitoring" this site could happen


I believe this site has been monitored in the past. The mods are and always have been very uick to remove certain words. Much more so than on other sites.



sub4hire -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/25/2005 7:59:04 AM)

A stay of sorts, at least for a couple of month's.

For Immediate Release

Tom Hymes
Communications Director
Free Speech Coalition
P.O. Box 10480
Canoga Park, CA 91309
Office: 818-348-9373
cell: 310.384.6298
ICQ: 232367366
tom @ freespeechcoalition.com


Free Speech Coalition
P.O. Box 10480, Canoga Park, CA 91309
ph: 818-348-9373
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com
pr @ freespeechcoalition.com


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 23, 2005


FSC/DoJ Reach Agreement Suspending 2257 Enforcement for Plaintiffs and FSC Members


Denver, Co. – The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) announced today a stipulation between the parties in Free Speech Coalition et al v.
Alberto Gonzales, under which the U.S. Department of Justice agrees that the regulations relating to the federal record-keeping and labeling law,
18 U.S.C. §2257, will not be enforced against plaintiffs and all FSC members until September 7, 2005.

The U.S. District Court in Denver will hold a preliminary injunction hearing on August 8, 2005, after which the judge will determine whether to issue a further injunction.

Specifically, the DoJ will not conduct any inspections or pursue any claims with regard to the plaintiffs and their members, but reserves the right to inspect and prosecute anyone who is not a plaintiff or FSC member.

According to the stipulation, agreed to and issued as an order of the Court today, the DoJ, will submit any entity it intends to inspect to a Special Master who will then check the entity's name against a sealed and confidential FSC membership list. The Special Master will be appointed by the Court, with the consent of the parties, and will be under a specific obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the FSC membership list.

A master list of members will be submitted to the Special Master on Wednesday June 29, 2005, and will include all FSC members as of 2:00 p.m. pacific standard time, Saturday June 25, 2005.

**Please do not post full articles** M3



anthrosub -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/25/2005 8:08:49 AM)

quote:

The only thing I question is the pseudo-intellectual comment.


That is admittedly a long sentence containing a flaw. I intended the comment to describe posts that are well written, using extended vocabulary and style that in itself, suggests authority. Your posts demonstrate these traits; hence the parentheses at the end. It should read, "...pseudo-intellectual postings written in such a way...."

As I first stated, it's not about you. It's about the postings. They are all anyone has to get an impression of the author; so in a very real sense your postings are who you are as far as this board is concerned. This is the overall message I tried to convey. I'm not saying anything about the subject of this particular thread as I'm not familiar with it yet (something I'm going to check out this weekend).

I will tell you there have been many times in my own experience where I've posted something only to have someone else come back with a follow-up that showed me what I had to say was either incomplete, subjective, or suggested something while overshadowing something else that was equally, if not more important. Having been in that situation enough times, I can see the pattern.

It's an unfortunate but inevitable circumstance that once we release a post from edit mode, we are at the mercy of the audience as to how they understand it. I continue to be fascinated that more people don't write as if they are aware of this communication pothole or at least try to address it when the "flames" start up.

Thank you for your reply,
anthrosub



Lordandmaster -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/25/2005 8:44:12 AM)

Anthro, what the hell are you talking about?



Faramir -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/25/2005 8:56:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fillepink

the thrust of the 14th Amendment is to restrict the states from abridging the rights of citizens which are guarateed to them under the U.S. Constitution and federal law. Internet law is not my forte, but i know that warrants have been issued that have required ISP's to give a user's real name and addy.


[image]local://upfiles/72910/B3EA287F4BE14365A76AD3C9C14079F9.jpg[/image]


The thrust of the first section of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution is that the state can't act without due process of law, and that all citizens enjoy equal protection under the law.

My point was about the former - due process and the "penumbra of rights." Since Griswold vs Connecticut [GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT U.S. Supreme Court 381 U.S. 479 (1965)] the due process clause has mean the state has to have a compelling interest in exercising it's powers. The state might well want all kinds of crazy shit - they might want AOL to keep records of every persons email, chat - shit they prolly want us all to get tagged and have transponders surgially implated in our butts.

But the state's desire to overstep the bounds of the Constitution aren't an overthrow of the Constitution. My point is that the DOJ wanting something unconstitutional is pretty par for the course, and doesn't invalidate said Constitution.



SirKenin -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/25/2005 10:10:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mantis65

That's why 2257 is a great testing ground for a much broader scheme by the DOJ. This scheme, sometimes called "mandatory data retention," would force all Internet service providers to keep files on everything that people using their services are doing online. Every time you use AOL, the company would have to keep a record of your chat sessions, what Web sites you visited, your e-mail, etc. Sound like another paranoid fantasy brought to you by the tinfoil-hat brigade? Think again: It's a real proposal that was floated by the DOJ at an April 27 meeting with various Internet service providers. News.com quotes US Internet Industry Association president Dave McClure saying that DOJ reps want to mandate, perhaps "by law," a set time period during which ISPs would retain data about the personal online habits of all their users.

That's how it goes. First they come for the pornographers, and then they come for you


this is in an article here DOJ wants to track more than just kiddie porn they want to know what you are doing online (for your own good of course)

http://www.alternet.org/story/22289/


I totally agree that is a serious problem. If that were true I would have plenty to say about it as well.



SirKenin -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/25/2005 10:41:44 AM)

What IS the big deal about secondary producers? I have asked this already and nobody has given Me an answer. I have asked anthrosub and although I was given an excellent feedback on his critique, I have yet to see ANYONE stand up and state what the problem is with secondary producers having to keep records.

A secondary producer is very simply someone who buys the works from the original author and posts them on their website. There are all kinds of sites that license material from a few main sources. It only makes perfect sense that if you are going to be posting someone's pictures on your website that you KNOW for sure what the origin is of those pictures. You have a current obligation as a smut peddler to ensure that all the models posted on your website are of legal age. This statute has been in place forever, and the compliance notices are already placed on most adult websites.

2257 is just one step further. Now you MUST make certain that you not only have the word of the producer, but that you keep a copy for yourself. How bad can that POSSIBLY be, all you chicken little's that have nothing better to do but squawck about how THEY might think My suit fits, or where I might have bought a car from, how I choose to shave or claim civility while bitching about the mispelling of ONE LOUSY WORD. How pathetic can people be? I am starting to lose faith in this place. Nothing but a bunch of kids trying to masquerade as intellectuals (with exceptions of course).

Now all you have to do is formulate an agreement with the content producer that you will purchase their wares provided they provide a copy of all appropriate documentation.

That is it.. That is all. [sm=rolleyes.gif]




sub4hire -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/25/2005 10:54:38 AM)

quote:

I have asked this already and nobody has given Me an answer. I have asked anthrosub and although I was given an excellent feedback on his critique, I have yet to see ANYONE stand up and state what the problem is with secondary producers having to keep records.


From what I understand they must keep the same records the original site holder must keep. They realize that the address's are going to change over time...as info gets passed around.
That is my understanding at least.

Sorry, but I chose not to get into the childish fight that was going on.
I just don't see a reason to fight about what is affecting all of us. It is counter productive.

I'm not an expert on the law here either. I'm just quoting what I have been reading about all of this.



SirKenin -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/25/2005 11:08:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sub4hire

quote:

I have asked this already and nobody has given Me an answer. I have asked anthrosub and although I was given an excellent feedback on his critique, I have yet to see ANYONE stand up and state what the problem is with secondary producers having to keep records.


From what I understand they must keep the same records the original site holder must keep. They realize that the address's are going to change over time...as info gets passed around.
That is my understanding at least.

Sorry, but I chose not to get into the childish fight that was going on.
I just don't see a reason to fight about what is affecting all of us. It is counter productive.

I'm not an expert on the law here either. I'm just quoting what I have been reading about all of this.



Yes, this is exactly the same understanding I have of it. It really is not a big deal as far as I can see. Good for the State for trying to protect children. THEY should be O/our first priority, not defending O/our supposed rights to exploit them.



AAkasha -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/25/2005 11:09:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

What IS the big deal about secondary producers, barring Ssilver's childish insults? I have asked this already and nobody has given Me an answer. I have asked anthrosub and although I was given an excellent feedback on his critique, I have yet to see ANYONE stand up and state what the problem is with secondary producers having to keep records.

A secondary producer is very simply someone who buys the works from the original author and posts them on their website. There are all kinds of sites that license material from a few main sources. It only makes perfect sense that if you are going to be posting someone's pictures on your website that you KNOW for sure what the origin is of those pictures. You have a current obligation as a smut peddler to ensure that all the models posted on your website are of legal age. This statute has been in place forever, and the compliance notices are already placed on most adult websites.

2257 is just one step further. Now you MUST make certain that you not only have the word of the producer, but that you keep a copy for yourself. How bad can that POSSIBLY be, all you chicken little's that have nothing better to do but squawck about how THEY might think My suit fits, or where I might have bought a car from, how I choose to shave or claim civility while bitching about the mispelling of ONE LOUSY WORD. How pathetic can people be? I am starting to lose faith in this place. Nothing but a bunch of kids trying to masquerade as intellectuals (with exceptions of course).

Now all you have to do is formulate an agreement with the content producer that you will purchase their wares provided they provide a copy of all appropriate documentation.

That is it.. That is all. [sm=rolleyes.gif]


Why won't you just read what 2257 is about, read some of the commentary about it (there is plenty on the web) and see what the issues are? There are hundreds of pages that summarize this.

I found a web site that explains it very simply. You should be able to understand this. Read it before complaining that you don't see what the big deal is:

http://freeinternetpress.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3868

Akasha



SirKenin -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/25/2005 11:11:56 AM)


I have read the statute and you and others are crying wolf as far as I am concerned.



AAkasha -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/25/2005 11:14:37 AM)

I will highlight one part of it:

"As for the fact that every webmaster already has this paper trail, that is false. They may have the model releases already on file, but now they're required to create a new paper trail to every instance of the photograph anywhere it may be shown, which in most cases is impossible. The new paper trail, retroactive to every photo shot since 1969, makes it impossible for any American adult entertainment company work. In addition, providers of DVD's, in brick and mortor stores, or on the Internet, must have the full paper trail for every video they provide. In the past, they've simply referenced the people who do have the records."

Akasha



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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