Jesus fucking christ, it's not the same thing, and leave that bullshit out of my topic, okay? Go argue it in your own topic.

(Have you STILL not even BOTHERED TO READ the legislation that deals with that blog topic? Willfull ignorance makes me sad. Continued willful igorance just really pisses me off.)



So.. back to the porn thing...


[Edited on Jun 23, 2005 by Shalome]

I'm certain the webmasters of SG have all their records on file for the models, but what about the thousands of personal pics we all have in our collective journal pages? Will this law apply to them as well? It would be a shame if such extended features of this site were removed to comply with the statute. Or rather, to avoid the possibility of a personal album containing graphic images who's subjects' ages could not be easily verified.

Blogs probably have more "lobby" power behind them than online porn. Online porn is a decently large business, but if you read the Federal Register, where it talks about the 2257 changes made unilaterally by Gonzales (Congress handed him full power to do so), it shows how little response they got from the proposals. They claim not even one pornographer submitted an estimate for costs. The adult industry/webmasters are pretty "private" and cautious about sharing any information about their business, and it may have hurt them this time.

Two particularly bad things about this law are 1) the requirement that all secondary producers have a copy of all documentation from primary producers (including names and addresses, good for stalking performers) and 2) that you cannot hire a specialized 3rd party to handle the documentation for you. It's too bad 3rd parties can't be used, because that would solve the stalker problem as well.

I would expect as news spreads about 2257 (it's barely received any media play, but the entire adult industry appears well aware of it) sites as Shalome mentions, with photos from parties and personal photos, will all eventually shut down. Yahoo! and other profiles will probably have to be super strict about adult content, and I don't know how adult personals could possibly survive.

Of course, the net result will be that no additional child pornography is caught that wouldn't have been caught before -- primary producers have already been required to check and keep records on all performers.

This worries me too. As the statute stands, if you are a webmaster and there are sexually explicit photos on your website, you must have on file records stating that every participant in the photos was over the age of 18.

I suppose the fact that this is a pay site restricted to those 18 and up (with a proven policy of kicking off the underage) could help, though..

...from my cold, dead mouse-finger...

As I read it, yes, the law would apply to them as well. You're the primary producer and SuicideGirls, hosting the image, would be the secondary producer. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so maybe there's some loophole I didn't see, but I did spend a day reading the law and all the notes from A.G. Gonzales.

The thumbnails in a blog I visit regularly were replaced with this



and I figured it was a joke or something since I hadn't heard anything about it from the news.


And the law says it's illegal to not have proof? They don't even need to prove that the pictures are actually of minors?

They require proof to "guarantee" that they're not minors. Even for grandma porn.

If your porn is over 7 years old (or so, I forget the exact time this law took effect), you have to have a statement saying that the image is not subject to 2257. But you better be sure of the age of the image.

Well i think we've all learned a valuable lesson. Next time we're at a kooky or even perhaps zany party and something hilarious goes awry, and someone takes an "indecent" snapshot, we should all have our IDs clearly showing, with a public notary in the background notifying this, and have it watermarked and copyrighted to verify it's content, as well as showing all people in the picture swearing on bibles that all information is accurate and no minors are present, anywhere, ever.

man, the government ruins all my parties.

This is scary, but not because it’s blatant fascism – it’s scary because it’s an amendment that dulls the power of “free” speech while still being perfectly defensible. Let’s face it, on the surface, this is a law that’s ostensibly protecting minors, and that’s all that Joe Bag-O’doughtnuts, Pamela Soccermom, and the popular media are likely to see it as. It’s difficult to really denounce such an amendment because you practically have to decry puppy dogs and ice cream to do it, but to anyone aware of the erosion of civil liberties this resembles a forceful pickaxe blow rather than natural wear by wind and rain. If subversive attacks of this nature keep up, how long will it be before mainstream pornography slips into the ocean, and when that happens will the public be brainwashed enough to cheer its fall?

I hereby award Alberto Gonzales 75 experience points for having a clever idea, 200 experience points for roleplaying his Lawful-Evil alignment to a tee, and will continue to tabulate group awards based on how many pornographers the DoJ successfully defeats in court.

I actually posted about this in the Legal group but it raised barely a stir.

Source: Sunny the Camgirl.

So now every porn site that doesn't create its own content is going out of business or at least having to get rid of all its old content?

This has been done to dances also by trying to make them wear badges with all there personal info on it. It is stupidity at its finest.

Give to theACLU

*continues to sit back and wait for the revolution to occur*