RE: My First Experience with U.S.C. 2257 - How is it affecting you? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News



Message

JohnWarren -> RE: My First Experience with U.S.C. 2257 - How is it affecting you? (10/31/2005 4:32:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jro2020

I am correct in interperating this as saying only if you distribute or intend to distribute and porn you have to have proof the person is of age, and any aliases they may be using. I mean that's pretty standard stuff anyway if you don't want to accidentally get busted for child porn.


The point is the law does not limit this to "porn" but to any "indecent" material. There IS NO legal definition for "indecent" (not that there is much of one for obscene). It also doesn't limit it to people who might be under 18 so it's pretty clearly aimed at creating a record keeping nightmare for site owners.



jro2020 -> RE: My First Experience with U.S.C. 2257 - How is it affecting you? (10/31/2005 8:38:03 AM)

I suppose, but it just seems like good buisness sense anyway. Especially if you are hosting all original material it is the same sort fo paperwork that you keep with the release forms.



MistressDidi -> RE: My First Experience with U.S.C. 2257 - How is it affecting you? (11/3/2005 8:50:57 PM)

WOW! How eloquently said! Beautiful! Just beautiful!



MistressDidi -> RE: My First Experience with U.S.C. 2257 - How is it affecting you? (11/3/2005 9:01:25 PM)

Just wanted to thank you for all of your research and for bringing up Barbra Nitke!



stormsfate -> RE: My First Experience with U.S.C. 2257 - How is it affecting you? (11/11/2005 6:34:31 PM)

I listened to a discussion on the radio this morning, and according to "The Wease", apparently the FBI is setting up a pornography task force and looking for applicants. They read part of the information about the recruitment effort, and it specifically mentioned cases that had the strongest chances of getting a conviction. They were (given in this order) beastiality, urination, defacation and sadomasochistic acts. The discussion focused around the new "War on Porno". Guess they have forgotten about the "War on Terrorism" already :::sigh:::

I am also one who will freely admit to being a supporter of Bush, but I have to say that lately I've been strongly considering voting democratic in the next elections.



best regards,
f



embre -> RE: My First Experience with U.S.C. 2257 - How is it affecting you? (11/12/2005 8:37:22 AM)

I've read through all of the responses here. One thing I haven't seen brought up with 2257 laws is the clause in there that states every website having indecent material must post their real name, business address and phone number in a PUBLIC area of their website. I don't know about you, but that can cause many problems for people wanting to protect thier privacy on the web.
Many people run websites from home, hence it's is also their business address. And there is no stipulation in this law that you have to be making money off from your pictures to fall under this.



HotLover -> RE: My First Experience with U.S.C. 2257 - How is it affecting you? (11/12/2005 11:52:11 AM)

I had no idea about that. That is news to me.



girl4you2 -> RE: My First Experience with U.S.C. 2257 - How is it affecting you? (11/12/2005 4:27:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: embre

I've read through all of the responses here. One thing I haven't seen brought up with 2257 laws is the clause in there that states every website having indecent material must post their real name, business address and phone number in a PUBLIC area of their website. I don't know about you, but that can cause many problems for people wanting to protect thier privacy on the web.
Many people run websites from home, hence it's is also their business address. And there is no stipulation in this law that you have to be making money off from your pictures to fall under this.

the name and address is now posted on several sites that i have seen. for others, this may have heavily contributed to their closing, along with the prospect of spending a lot of money to come out on the right side of things. it's not just pictures, either, as i understand it, but also stories. not a good thing.

personal freedoms are eroding all over the place, and it's not changing anything that are supposedly "bad" things out there lurking to damage kids or country.



HeavenlyCeleste -> RE: My First Experience with U.S.C. 2257 - How is it affecting you? (11/13/2005 3:32:28 PM)

I have a monthly membership website that is covered under 2257. It is a lot less work than you would think to keep track of things AND it helps keep child porn off the net. I say if it protects children from all that then let's do it!



Jacques1000 -> RE: My First Experience with U.S.C. 2257 - How is it affecting you? (11/17/2005 6:34:47 AM)


The States is such a hotbed of puritannical, reactionary baloney.



MizSuz -> RE: My First Experience with U.S.C. 2257 - How is it affecting you? (12/10/2005 7:54:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyTantalize

Next the right-wing will have us all labeled with a scarlett letter and removed to some "offshore" penal colony!




<grin> It worked out ok for Australia.



SEVERUSMAX -> RE: My First Experience with U.S.C. 2257 - How is it affecting you? (12/15/2005 10:03:33 AM)

It's typical of politicians to pass a law like this, which can't pass constitutional scrutiny, as QUIETLY as possible. Spineless turds!



MadameDahlia -> RE: My First Experience with U.S.C. 2257 - How is it affecting you? (12/15/2005 2:22:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HeavenlyCeleste

I have a monthly membership website that is covered under 2257. It is a lot less work than you would think to keep track of things AND it helps keep child porn off the net. I say if it protects children from all that then let's do it!


The thing is... it doesn't. It has nothing to do with unmentionables, not a damned thing. All it does is make it harder for those who make a living through the adult industry - regardless of whether or not it's vanilla or D/s related.

http://www.collarchat.com/m_115416/mpage_11/key_2257/tm.htm

As Akasha mentioned in a prior topic:

Even the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection say that 2257 won't do a thing:

"The government has the same data as ASACP. They must know that 99.9% of CP has nothing to do with the professional adult industry", said Joan Irvine, executive director of ASACP. "The new 2257 rules will not stop the production or distribution of child pornography. Adult companies already comply with the current laws; the criminals involved in CP don't and never will." Irvine continues, "As I have said before, I wish the government would focus their time and financial resources on apprehending the real criminals and truly saving children."

http://asacp.org/press/pr062405.html

And on top of that:

Comment sent to site: You do realize that 18 U.S.C. ยง 2257 was passed in the 1980s, right? To prevent child pornography after Traci Lords started making videos as an underage teen lying about her age.

Editor's Reply: The laws have done absolutely nothing to stop what Traci Lords did. They require a virtually impossible paper trail to be created. Tracy Lords had a real drivers license, obtained through illegal methods. The drivers license had the wrong name, the wrong birthdate, but her photograph. Even with all the new laws, what does this do to stop the 15 year old Traci Lords from performing? Absolutely nothing.

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



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




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