Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Anti-porn law faces major setback


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Anti-porn law faces major setback Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Anti-porn law faces major setback - 3/22/2007 4:01:22 PM   
cyberdude611


Posts: 2596
Joined: 5/7/2006
Status: offline 		Net porn ban faces another legal setback
Federal judge says 1998 law targeting Web sites deemed "harmful to minors" goes too far and violates the free speech rights of American adults.
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: March 22, 2007, 10:42 AM PDT
U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed in Philadelphia permanently barred prosecutors from enforcing the Child Online Protection Act, or COPA, saying it was overly broad and would undoubtedly "chill a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech for adults." The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Even though politicians enacted COPA nearly a decade ago as part of an early wave of Internet censorship efforts, the courts have kept it on ice and it has never actually been enforced. The law makes it a crime for commercial Web sites to make "harmful to minors" material publicly available, with violators fined up to $50,000 and imprisoned for up to six months.

A representative for the Justice Department said on Thursday: "We're still reviewing the court's opinion and we've made no determination what the government's next step will be." The Bush administration has the option of appealing its loss to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Because of an odd legal twist, COPA has been bouncing around the legal system without a final resolution. The law already has been reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court once--which agreed with a temporary ban on enforcement--but the justices said they wanted more information about the current state of filtering technology and stopped short of a definitive ruling on its constitutionality.

Reed's 84-page opinion (PDF) appears to be intended to provide ample grounds for the Supreme Court to strike down the law for good. The opinion includes a detailed review of the current state of filtering technology and concludes the programs are "fairly easy to install" and are "more effective than ever before."

The almost-forgotten law made headlines last year after Justice Department attorneys preparing to defend COPA in Reed's Pennsylvania courtroom sent subpoenas to Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL asking for millions of search records. Only Google fought the subpoena in court, and it managed to persuade a California judge to limit what information prosecutors would receive.

The Justice Department gave excerpts of the search engines' databases (and, in some cases, anonymized search terms) to its expert, a Berkeley statistics professor named Philip Stark.

In response, Stark and a colleague prepared a report that said 1.1 percent of the Web sites cataloged by Google and MSN are sexually explicit. They also found that, in response to Web pages returned in response to the most popular search terms, AOL's filter performed the best and blocked 98.7 percent of sexually explicit Web pages. Some filters, however, blocked less than 90 percent of such pages.

In his ruling on Thursday, Reed cited the testimony of one of the ACLU's witnesses, Carnegie Mellon University professor Lorrie Faith Cranor, who found that filters generally block 95 percent of sexually explicit material. He also said that two congressionally-mandated studies "have confirmed that content filters can be effective at preventing minors from accessing harmful materials online" and are therefore more effective than criminal penalties.

First Amendment precedent makes this a crucial point: Anti-porn laws can only be upheld as constitutional if they're the least restrictive and most effective way to shield minors from salacious material. Otherwise, they're viewed as unconstitutional.

What if the Bush administration wins?
If the courts eventually uphold COPA as constitutional, a wide variety of Web publishers--from news to sex education to adult pornography--would have to revamp their sites or face criminal prosecution.

"Teaser" images on U.S. porn sites would likely vanish, since COPA says Webmasters who employ measures such as credit card verification or require an "adult access code" can't be prosecuted because such mechanisms would typically keep out minors. Other sites would simply move overseas, where U.S. law doesn't apply.

But COPA's use of the term "harmful to minors" is broad enough to sweep in more mainstream publishers as well. The term is defined as material that lacks "scientific, literary, artistic or political value" for minors and that is offensive to local "community standards."

That's why plaintiffs in the COPA case include the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, Salon.com, ObGyn.net, Philadelphia Gay News and the Internet Content Coalition. CNET Networks, publisher of News.com, was a member of the now-defunct Internet Content Coalition.

Reed acknowledged that Congress "apparently intended" COPA to apply to commercial pornographers. But he ruled that the actual wording of the law is broad enough that mainstream publishers could "fear prosecution."

When Congress was debating the law a decade ago, anti-pornography groups identified it as a key political priority and lent strong support to conservative Republicans such as Ohio's Michael Oxley, COPA's co-author, who is no longer a member of the House of Representatives.

The American Family Association once called COPA "Congress' latest attempt to protect innocent children from the devastating effects on Internet pornography." The Family Research Council filed a legal brief calling the Internet the "most intrusive, pervasive medium of communication ever created," which can offer a "particularly dangerous method of transmitting" pornography.

COPA represents Congress' second attempt to restrict sexually explicit material on the Internet. The Supreme Court in 1997 rejected the Communications Decency Act, which targeted "indecent" or "patently offensive" material, as unconstitutional.

http://news.com.com/Net+porn+ban+faces+another+legal+setback/2100-1030_3-6169621.html?tag=nefd.top
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Anti-porn law faces major setback - 3/22/2007 4:28:49 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		People should realise that you can't try to make laws that conflict with the First Amendment.
Or the Second, or the Third...

(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Anti-porn law faces major setback - 3/22/2007 4:35:52 PM   
cyberdude611


Posts: 2596
Joined: 5/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

People should realise that you can't try to make laws that conflict with the First Amendment.
Or the Second, or the Third...


Notice that over the past decade, the censorship has all been about "protecting the children." It seems Big Brother likes to enforce his censorship by using children to justify his actions.

Pretty sad really...

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Anti-porn law faces major setback - 3/22/2007 4:39:51 PM   
Aileen68


Posts: 6091
Joined: 8/2/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Notice that over the past decade, the censorship has all been about "protecting the children." It seems Big Brother likes to enforce his censorship by using children to justify his actions.

Pretty sad really...


I kinda always thought it was a parents job  to protect and monitor their children.

(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Anti-porn law faces major setback - 3/22/2007 5:10:33 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aileen68

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Notice that over the past decade, the censorship has all been about "protecting the children." It seems Big Brother likes to enforce his censorship by using children to justify his actions.

Pretty sad really...


I kinda always thought it was a parents job  to protect and monitor their children.


Me too!
I think one Hillary Clinton started that crap.
"It's,.......FOR THE CHIL-DREN!!!"

"But, but,....What about THE CHILDREN???"

Anytime they want to raise taxes or start another "program" its,....."FOR THE CHILDREN!!!"

(in reply to Aileen68)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Anti-porn law faces major setback - 3/22/2007 6:37:54 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline 		Before I start my sub-rant, I'd like to get something out in the open. This is all bullshit. While I agree that viewing a child as a sex object is aggregious, is that true the other way around ?

Just what harm is done to a child who runs across a nude picture of an adult of the opposite sex ? Tell you this much, all it did for me is to help get me tired of it. You see when I was young I found an entire shopping cart full of porn. But you can't have sex with a book or a screen.

This did nothing for my kink, it had been there since I was about 8. What's more, in the whole grand scheme of things, how many Parents have been caught in the act by curious children ? The point here is that some people make way too much out of it. They are curious, and all you do by witholding is to multiply their curiousity.

With that out of the way, the subject is law, not the porn itself, so now I will get on topic.

To the OP, I know these laws are ill written and selectively enforced. When you have so many laws that nobody could possibly know them all, that is what happens. The reason it happened is because "they" wanted it to happen, so with selective enforcement they could leave their friends alone and fuck with their competition. When they put a guy in jail for importing lobsters, there is something wrong.These were not under the table in any way, they guy had a legit business and one would expect the lobsters were normally sold to resaurants. But they had been packaged improperly, but wait, he BOUGHT them, not sold them !

I don't know if you are aware of it, there is a new law that makes COPA look like  ten dollar fine for screwing a ten yrar old on network TV. It's designation is USC 2257. I think the fine is less, but the prison time is more. This has effectively shut down most of the porn in the US as far as the internet goes. There are a few sites, but the compliance requirement have done two things. They have shut down the little guy.

In the past, a legal porn site operator would of course check ID, and have a copy of the release and the model's SSN. That's not enough anymore.

The first problem is you now need a photocopy of the ID, and who knows if they want a color one. I happen to know that there are laws in some states against copying someone's driver's license in color. I know of one copy center that refused to do it.

That's not the worst of it. These records must now be in a place open for business so the feds can inspect the physical documents.It must be open 20 hours a week.

The net effect is to take out all the little guys, and shut down all the freebies.

The wording of USC 2257 is so broad, that the models do not have to be completely nude. A few site operaters have told me that they can't even use "that" pose to get out of it. You know the one, totally nude but you can't see anything. She sits and her legs are turned just right and her arms cover most of her breasts. You see a shoulder, one side of a midriff, just a bit of butt cheek (no crack at all, your plumber probably gives you more), and of course the outside of one of her legs.

That pose is not exempt, and I've had cites from it from webmasters explaining why, they read the law. It is truly ridiculous. Also not exempt would be a chastity belt.

If you want to see something that is not exempt, http://www.neosteel.de/Ns_010423_002_03t.JPG
Just what does that picture show ? Is it the bit of flesh in the front that a bikini thong wouldn't show that is harmful in some way ? Or is it the lock ? It better be one or the other because the picture does not show the back, and there are high fashion belts for Women that are made of metal. OR is it the fact that these are real or something like that ?

What I was trying to find but don't have the time right now, is the pics or the Woman wearing the whole getup. They have the CB AND a rear shield, and a chastity bra. Such items made of cloth, or even leather, would be damclose to street legal. Maybe not quite everywhere, but some places and times.

I can't quote alot of USC 2257 but I do remember these words : "Anything that could".

Well I guess all those online corset shops and lingerie stores will have to move offshore as well soon.

Wait until they get around to the Sears catalog ! Holy shit do you realize that this smut is enjoyed by kids before they are even old enough for the internet ? Seven and eight year olds ! THINK OF THE CHILDREN ! ! !

Come on, we have kids "feeling funny" about seeing Women in their underwear, who are old enough to be their Mother !

And they don't do a damn thing about it. Now I could see this, picture this, the prosecution of Sears for their catalogue content. It's one thing if it is Victoria's Secret (they prosecute them next week), but if the managment of Sears wanted to sell as much as possible, and claim, without shame that their catalogue is specifically designed to generate the most profits, why don't they have any ugly models ?

THEY KNOW the Victorias Secret catalogue is put out of reach, but who would think it ? Who would keep the Sears catalogue from their children ? Their Parents think they are looking at toys, or even better, tools. But no, they are loking at smut, pandered to young children by these, these, insert your own adjective.

What's more this is a multigenerational scheme, and they have never yet been caught. They are masterminds.

If they keep going in this direction, it will get bad. Also the copyright laws are always getting worse as well. This all serves big money. So if you want porn in the future, get out the ballot box or the cartridge box, it's either that or your wallet.

I wouldn't be surprised a bit if the religious fanaticism is supported by the porn industry itself. The big boys in the game gain, the rest lose. The rich get richer. And I can tell you this much about the "them" who run things, it has been proven so many times that they don't care about us in any way, who would be stupide enough to believe they are concerned with our spiritual purity ?

We are talking about war criminals here. Yes, they need to save us.

Vote for Ron Paul

T

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Anti-porn law faces major setback - 3/22/2007 9:44:32 PM   
cyberdude611


Posts: 2596
Joined: 5/7/2006
Status: offline 		Most of this is fueled by religious extremism. If you look at the people that support such censorship, it is almost always someone religious. They think nudity is against the bible. And it isn't just children, they think they need to protect you from such content.

Keep in mind we live in a country where congress spent several days of hearings concerning Janet Jackson's breast showing for a tenth of a second during the Super Bowl half-time show. We live in a society where kids play video games where they earn points for killing people and tearing their heads off...but having them see a naked woman is a horror that needs to be forbidden until they are age 18.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Anti-porn law faces major setback - 3/22/2007 10:31:15 PM   
Sternhand4


Posts: 422
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Most of this is fueled by religious extremism. If you look at the people that support such censorship, it is almost always someone religious. They think nudity is against the bible. And it isn't just children, they think they need to protect you from such content.

Keep in mind we live in a country where congress spent several days of hearings concerning Janet Jackson's breast showing for a tenth of a second during the Super Bowl half-time show. We live in a society where kids play video games where they earn points for killing people and tearing their heads off...but having them see a naked woman is a horror that needs to be forbidden until they are age 18.

Its not just religious people that want to protect their UMs. As a member here, and just being a guy I think adults should make the call for themselves. But UMs should be protected. Just search for the word "kitty" and see what comes up. Adult sites should be using a different extension, like .prn or . alt This would let you restrict your UMs from those extensions. Of course any 14 yr old will beat the software lock, but at least you have made the effort. I found that just placing the computer in a public room ( the den) and warning that dad has the ability to see where you surf enough of a damper.

As for Janet, it was a sporting event, not the pay per view "lingerie bowl" so they ( CBS or her) had no right to place that in her act.
Its like the other thread about the people at Disney. What works for you, or me is one thing. Its not right to force your or my kink on others unless they consent. 

< Message edited by Sternhand4 -- 3/22/2007 10:32:26 PM >

(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Anti-porn law faces major setback - 3/22/2007 11:03:18 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aileen68

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Notice that over the past decade, the censorship has all been about "protecting the children." It seems Big Brother likes to enforce his censorship by using children to justify his actions.

Pretty sad really...


I kinda always thought it was a parents job  to protect and monitor their children.


Me too!
I think one Hillary Clinton started that crap.
"It's,.......FOR THE CHIL-DREN!!!"

"But, but,....What about THE CHILDREN???"

Anytime they want to raise taxes or start another "program" its,....."FOR THE CHILDREN!!!"


Dude, it started long before Hillary Clinton.  Movie ratings, television ratings, radio ratings, what can be said on any form of media goes back almost to the invention of said media.

Do you really think Hillary Clinton had anything to do with the fact that the actors in the television show Bewitched could never be seen in a bed together without one leg on the floor on opposite sides of the bed?

I am not a running dog apologist for the Clintons, but they are not responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire.

Give it a rest.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Anti-porn law faces major setback - 3/22/2007 11:46:17 PM   
cyberdude611


Posts: 2596
Joined: 5/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Most of this is fueled by religious extremism. If you look at the people that support such censorship, it is almost always someone religious. They think nudity is against the bible. And it isn't just children, they think they need to protect you from such content.

Keep in mind we live in a country where congress spent several days of hearings concerning Janet Jackson's breast showing for a tenth of a second during the Super Bowl half-time show. We live in a society where kids play video games where they earn points for killing people and tearing their heads off...but having them see a naked woman is a horror that needs to be forbidden until they are age 18.

Its not just religious people that want to protect their UMs. As a member here, and just being a guy I think adults should make the call for themselves. But UMs should be protected. Just search for the word "kitty" and see what comes up. Adult sites should be using a different extension, like .prn or . alt This would let you restrict your UMs from those extensions. Of course any 14 yr old will beat the software lock, but at least you have made the effort. I found that just placing the computer in a public room ( the den) and warning that dad has the ability to see where you surf enough of a damper.

As for Janet, it was a sporting event, not the pay per view "lingerie bowl" so they ( CBS or her) had no right to place that in her act.
Its like the other thread about the people at Disney. What works for you, or me is one thing. Its not right to force your or my kink on others unless they consent. 


Well first off, I think if a 14 year old is intelligent enough to break through software blocks, he/she is probably intelligent enough to understand pornography to a point where it won't psychologically damage them. Teens typically start puberty by age 13. They are becoming interested in the opposite gender (or maybe the same gender) in a sexual way, and they begin to explore feelings dealing with their sexuality. I mean when I found my dad's stash of Playboy when I was 13 or 14, I wasn't psychologically scarred or damged, I thought I was in Disneyland. I thought it was the coolest thing in the world.

As for the problems with google searches, that is a internet issue that can be addressed without having to restrict access for legal adults. This law that was passed went well beyond that simple problem. And that is why it is being struck down by the courts. When it comes to protecting the children, legislatures have a tendancy to go way too far. And that is what happened with the Communication Decency Act which was struck down, and now COPA is going to be struck down as well. When congress passes a law that restricts children but not adults, then the law might stand. Until then, the internet is going to be a free-for-all.

As for Janet Jackson, it was not intentionally put in the program. It was an accident. And I don't consider it serious enough to waste tax payers money on it. We have too many problems in this country and the world to be worrying about a breast popping out unintenionally for a split second. It's not a major concern.

(in reply to Sternhand4)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Anti-porn law faces major setback - 3/22/2007 11:57:25 PM   
Sternhand4


Posts: 422
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Most of this is fueled by religious extremism. If you look at the people that support such censorship, it is almost always someone religious. They think nudity is against the bible. And it isn't just children, they think they need to protect you from such content.

Keep in mind we live in a country where congress spent several days of hearings concerning Janet Jackson's breast showing for a tenth of a second during the Super Bowl half-time show. We live in a society where kids play video games where they earn points for killing people and tearing their heads off...but having them see a naked woman is a horror that needs to be forbidden until they are age 18.

Its not just religious people that want to protect their UMs. As a member here, and just being a guy I think adults should make the call for themselves. But UMs should be protected. Just search for the word "kitty" and see what comes up. Adult sites should be using a different extension, like .prn or . alt This would let you restrict your UMs from those extensions. Of course any 14 yr old will beat the software lock, but at least you have made the effort. I found that just placing the computer in a public room ( the den) and warning that dad has the ability to see where you surf enough of a damper.

As for Janet, it was a sporting event, not the pay per view "lingerie bowl" so they ( CBS or her) had no right to place that in her act.
Its like the other thread about the people at Disney. What works for you, or me is one thing. Its not right to force your or my kink on others unless they consent. 


Well first off, I think if a 14 year old is intelligent enough to break through software blocks, he/she is probably intelligent enough to understand pornography to a point where it won't psychologically damage them. Teens typically start puberty by age 13. They are becoming interested in the opposite gender (or maybe the same gender) in a sexual way, and they begin to explore feelings dealing with their sexuality. I mean when I found my dad's stash of Playboy when I was 13 or 14, I wasn't psychologically scarred or damged, I thought I was in Disneyland. I thought it was the coolest thing in the world.

As for the problems with google searches, that is a internet issue that can be addressed without having to restrict access for legal adults. This law that was passed went well beyond that simple problem. And that is why it is being struck down by the courts. When it comes to protecting the children, legislatures have a tendancy to go way too far. And that is what happened with the Communication Decency Act which was struck down, and now COPA is going to be struck down as well. When congress passes a law that restricts children but not adults, then the law might stand. Until then, the internet is going to be a free-for-all.

As for Janet Jackson, it was not intentionally put in the program. It was an accident. And I don't consider it serious enough to waste tax payers money on it. We have too many problems in this country and the world to be worrying about a breast popping out unintenionally for a split second. It's not a major concern.

I agree that there are better things to work on. But it was not an accident. Look at the lyrics of the song and the construction of her outfit. Both items show it was planned, so they should have been fined ( which I think did happen a few months down the road.)

(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Anti-porn law faces major setback - 3/23/2007 12:00:00 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aileen68

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Notice that over the past decade, the censorship has all been about "protecting the children." It seems Big Brother likes to enforce his censorship by using children to justify his actions.

Pretty sad really...


I kinda always thought it was a parents job  to protect and monitor their children.


Me too!
I think one Hillary Clinton started that crap.
"It's,.......FOR THE CHIL-DREN!!!"

"But, but,....What about THE CHILDREN???"

Anytime they want to raise taxes or start another "program" its,....."FOR THE CHILDREN!!!"


i thought that was just one of like 4 of the latest buzz words that noves people...

the problem they have to tug at heart strings to get things through which is great motivation for false flags :)  Simply because it is so difficult when people are using their heads, ya gotta get em emotional so they want to kill  and protect their kids... primal and all that !  granted that is taking it to the extent of war but same dynamics


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Anti-porn law faces major setback - 3/23/2007 12:17:10 AM   
Bluebird


Posts: 384
Joined: 2/17/2006
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4
....
Adult sites should be using a different extension, like .prn or . alt This would let you restrict your UMs from those extensions. .....



That would not do a damn thing except make someone VERY rich as all the adult sites would have to re-register their legally-owned domains.  And all the secure certificates for the shopping carts would have to be re-certified and re-purchased, and what about the sites which are .net vs .com at this point - who gets the "adult" domain?  The net effect would be for the vast majority of adult sites to move their web hosting and ownership if not actual operations overseas, which would have the charming if unintended effect of a net loss of taxes!  Yes, most adult producers are legally licensed, tax-paying entities, yet our tax dollars go to support our own harassers - ironic, huh?  Incidentally, most adult sites do NOT want minors visiting the site for the simple reason that they have no money!
 
A much more effective solution is for parents to PARENT their children - what a concept! 

_____________________________

Love is patient, love is kind. I am neither. Get over it.

(in reply to Sternhand4)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Anti-porn law faces major setback - 3/23/2007 12:32:22 AM   
Sternhand4


Posts: 422
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebird

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sternhand4
....
Adult sites should be using a different extension, like .prn or . alt This would let you restrict your UMs from those extensions. .....



That would not do a damn thing except make someone VERY rich as all the adult sites would have to re-register their legally-owned domains.  And all the secure certificates for the shopping carts would have to be re-certified and re-purchased, and what about the sites which are .net vs .com at this point - who gets the "adult" domain?  The net effect would be for the vast majority of adult sites to move their web hosting and ownership if not actual operations overseas, which would have the charming if unintended effect of a net loss of taxes!  Yes, most adult producers are legally licensed, tax-paying entities, yet our tax dollars go to support our own harassers - ironic, huh?  Incidentally, most adult sites do NOT want minors visiting the site for the simple reason that they have no money!
 
A much more effective solution is for parents to PARENT their children - what a concept! 

For the most part its not a parent problem, its a technology issue. The most innocent search turns up porn now a days. If you cant see that this is a longterm problem for the industry, then dont be suprised when its regulated further. As an industry the Adult businesses would be money ahead to get out in front of this issue.

As for the expense to move domains or recertify, its the cost of doing business. Things like this affect us in the brick and mortar world too. 

(in reply to Bluebird)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Anti-porn law faces major setback - 3/23/2007 1:53:07 AM   
Bluebird


Posts: 384
Joined: 2/17/2006
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline 		The easiest answer is the one you came up with in your earlier post - just don't let the kid have private access to the PC.  That IS a parent issue.  And blocking software is available - that is also a parent issue to make sure it is installed. 
 
How can an industry get in front of the fact that parents don't feel it is their duty to supervise their children?  And you didn't answer the questions of WHO profits from all the re-registration as well as how to solve the issue of competing domains.
 
You are telling me it would be ok for legislation to say something like - All hardware stores now need to identify themselves as Home Goods stores, and they must immediately change their registered names, business licenses, web registrations, street signs, letterhead & other printed materials, bank accounts, payroll records, federal and state tax id, etc.  You think this would fly???  And the only reason for this change is to protect children who might mistakenly wander into a store thinking it carries ... toys? 

Edited to add - when you do those online searches, the VAST majority of sites that crop up with misleading keywords are international, so would be not affected in the least by US legislation.  All those sites would happily continue on the same path, just with less competition.

< Message edited by Bluebird -- 3/23/2007 1:56:35 AM >

_____________________________

Love is patient, love is kind. I am neither. Get over it.

(in reply to Sternhand4)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Anti-porn law faces major setback - 3/23/2007 3:44:01 AM   
Vendaval


Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebird

The easiest answer is the one you came up with in your earlier post - just don't let the kid have private access to the PC.  That IS a parent issue.  And blocking software is available - that is also a parent issue to make sure it is installed.  
 
And it is also the parent's issue to control what technology comes
into the house in the first place.  Technology does not come
cheap.  Who do you think pays for the gadgets in the first place?
 
 
How can an industry get in front of the fact that parents don't feel it is their duty to supervise their children? 
 
Right.  If we take the position that parents should not let their
children use the stove unsupervised, swim without adult supervision
or drive a car without a liscense and insurance, then how is Net access any different?
 
For years parents have been cautioned about the problems that
develop with letting the TV and video games control their
children's behavior.  The computer, cell phones, IPODs, etc
are also consumer products that can either be purchased
or not, and supervised once they are in the home.




_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE


http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to Bluebird)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Anti-porn law faces major setback - 3/23/2007 3:56:30 AM   
Vendaval


Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline 		I have always wondered about the double standard in American culture
regarding sex and violence.  I wonder what the root causes are?


quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611
Keep in mind we live in a country where congress spent several days of hearings concerning Janet Jackson's breast showing for a tenth of a second during the Super Bowl half-time show. We live in a society where kids play video games where they earn points for killing people and tearing their heads off...but having them see a naked woman is a horror that needs to be forbidden until they are age 18.


_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE


http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Anti-porn law faces major setback - 3/23/2007 6:21:20 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		I agree it started before the Clintons but wasn't it the Clintons that said it takes a village to raise children that parents can't do it anymore?   didn't that give government license to expand thier "protections"

(in reply to Vendaval)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Anti-porn law faces major setback - 3/23/2007 7:27:08 AM   
Sternhand4


Posts: 422
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluebird

The easiest answer is the one you came up with in your earlier post - just don't let the kid have private access to the PC.  That IS a parent issue.  And blocking software is available - that is also a parent issue to make sure it is installed. 
 
How can an industry get in front of the fact that parents don't feel it is their duty to supervise their children?  And you didn't answer the questions of WHO profits from all the re-registration as well as how to solve the issue of competing domains.
As I said its a cost of doing business, like whenever the goverment regulates something. It happens all the time. Those expenses get passed along to the consumer. Capitalism 101.
 

You are telling me it would be ok for legislation to say something like - All hardware stores now need to identify themselves as Home Goods stores, and they must immediately change their registered names, business licenses, web registrations, street signs, letterhead & other printed materials, bank accounts, payroll records, federal and state tax id, etc.  You think this would fly??? 
I like the hardware analogy, as an example here in NY. If you are under 21 you cannot buy boxcutters and spray paint cans ( big items in the inner city for gangs and malcontents ) and they are locked up, not just sitting on the shelves. Are we violating someones rights based on age, probably. But it has reduced graffiti and ritual cutting initiations. Its a shame that we have to have a law like this but in this case it was done at a community level, in response to community concerns.
What I find striking about your post is that you cant admit that as an industry,the adult sector has a "responsibility" to try and protect minors from thier product. Brick and morter establishments have to. Why should the internet be different.
Its like the MLB and steroids. Fail to police yourselves and the goverment will step in.
I agree that its a parents job to have the final responsibility for thier UMs, but the adult industry needs to try harder too. I have blocking software and some stuff still gets through. Just like virus's there's always someone looking to beat the system.
As for your argument that it will move off shore and we'd lose revenue. Look at internet gambling as a model. Poker was huge but the internet gaming act cut that down very quickly, ( i am not a supporter of this legislation ) but they failed to organise and lobby.
It didnt matter how much revenue was being generated. They are being forced out of business.
 
 And the only reason for this change is to protect children who might mistakenly wander into a store thinking it carries ... toys? 

Edited to add - when you do those online searches, the VAST majority of sites that crop up with misleading keywords are international, so would be not affected in the least by US legislation.  All those sites would happily continue on the same path, just with less competition.

(in reply to Bluebird)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Anti-porn law faces major setback - 3/23/2007 7:40:52 AM   
puella


Posts: 2457
Joined: 12/2/2004
Status: offline 		Don't fall out  of your chair cyberdude, but I agree with you.  I think the root of the problem is that people are not adequately parenting their children.  Sure a 14 year old can get around the cyber nanny software...but why does your kid have a pc with internet access in his bedroom (For that matter, why does he have an x-box and a battery of games which has content restrictions on it?)?  Keep the family computer in a family space… it is unlikely Junior will be looking at a close up of Jenna James getting a gang bang while you are sitting across the room, with a view of the screen, watching the news.

Can the kids still get access... sure, if he is determined enough, just like he can figure out ways to scam porno mags from others etc etc.   Sexual curiosity in developing teenagers is completely normal and they will look for things which seem to be 'illicit'.   If your faith or other beliefs compel you to keep teens away from this stuff (and I am not saying that is wrong.. I would not want my kids perving porn on the internet...) it is YOUR job as the parent to make sure that doesn't happen.  It is not society's obligation or burden.  You wanted the kid... you have the full time job of raising and policing them.


_____________________________

We must move forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom...... The Simpsons

War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." ...Ambrose Bierce

"Don't you oppress me!"....Stan/Loretta

(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Anti-porn law faces major setback Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.109