Son Goku
No lover of dogma
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2004
- Messages
- 1,980
Saw this on another board:
And mention of the bill:
My main contentions are:
1. If they get over-broad, they won't stop anything. Take a look what has happened with spam. US ISPs (and for good reason) don't want it on their servers, so the spammers take to making accounts in other countries like China.
Same could happen here. People simply move their sites away from US based ISPs, and go overseas. Only way these people could prevent anyone (and mind you this includes adults) from seeing what they don't want them to see, is for the government to require the instillation of mandatory web filtering software (perhaps at the ISP) that blocks non-US based sites from being visable in the US.
Mind you, this could carry certain ridicule with it... Isn't that what China and North Korea does to prevent it's citizens from seeing things the government over there doesn't want them to see?
2. People's definition of "smut" can very. For some people it might be full nudity. For other's it could be someone in a bathing suite, showing a little thigh...
3. If they really go overboard on the "linking to another site" part...they could well end up with an unacceptable and overly burdensome situation in which if www.cnn.com showed a news article with a picture that didn't agree with certain someone's; to link to an entirely different and unrelated news story, one would need a complete dosier on everything cnn.com ever published to link to just one story :down:
4. A measure to deal with/prevent the exploitation of children in child pornography is reasonable and proper. But it should also be carefully defined so as not to get overly broad in matters that don't really have to deal with children (and could per chance, depending on the limits placed upon it) have nothing to do with sex either...
Rule 2257 going into affect June 23, 2005 may make it impractical to have any explicit sexual pictures on escort sites, yahoo groups, or any website, video or box of a video with any sexually explicit pictures. Violation of the new law can result in a 10 year Federal prison sentence. The Religious Right is again rejoicing over their Bush Admin morality squad - in the Dept of Justice.
The requirements of 2257 are enormous. Even if the picture is obviously of an elderly couple that is sexually explicit there is a huge amount of data you have to have on file and available for a Dept of Justice inspection all to prove the pictures are not of under aged children. This is a very creative attempt by the DOJ/Bush Administration to stop adult porn using the excuse of stopping child porn.
A few of the requirements include government issued ID photo, model release form, all aliases, nicknames and get this.. performers MAIDEN name, home address, copy of the photo or video on file. Would apply even if its you on your own website. Or, a husband and wife couple required to have this information on file in proper format on each other. Here is an example of the required 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement. Sample at http://www.universalfilmworks.com/2257.html More details at www.avn.com/2257.
And it gets worse, much worse.
Under the secondary producer rules, even if you only LINK to a site with sexually explicit material, even if YOU have NO sexually explicit material YOU are REQUIRED to have all the same documentation as the linked to website! It makes no difference it the link is to a free or pay site. If it has sexually explicit pictures both you and the site you link to have to have the required records and compliance statement.
According to the DOJ, yahoo groups have to comply and gave this example: If you have 50 photo albums and in those are 50 people some with others comprising say 75 individuals, you would need to have all the proper documentation and databases for EVERY picture that is posted in those photo albums. Both the group owner and yahoo have the same responsibility. As someone said, "More then likely they said, these companies, to
stay out of it, will remove online public storage areas, and in that case only sending it through email will be the only choice of sharing those images."
And mention of the bill:
2257 ADVERTISING STANDARDS CHECKLIST
Complete 18 U.S.C. 2257 and 28 C.F.R. Part 75 documentation any visual depiction in an advertisement (including box covers) that portrays actual sexually explicit conduct, must be submitted to AVN with the proposed advertisement(s). Failure to submit the required information along with the proposed advertisement(s) may prevent AVN from including the advertisements in the magazine issues or on the web properties desired by the advertiser.
If softcore advertising depicting only nudity without actual sexually explicit conduct is submitted to AVN, the information listed below will not be required.
For the full explanation of AVN Sexually Explicit Advertising Standards go to: www.avn.com/2257
This checklist details the documents necessary for compliance with the law.
A photocopy or digital scan (preferred) of the performer’s valid picture identification card issued by the United States government or a State government.
The appropriate model release for every performer engaged or assisting in sexually explicit conduct in the image submitted.
The performer’s legal name and date of birth
The performer’s stage names
The performer’s professional names
The performer’s aliases
The performer’s nicknames
The performer’s maiden name
A digital copy of the depiction of sexually explicit conduct in which the performer appears, bearing the title or identifying number, if any
The business address of the submitter (must not be a post office box), and the name and title of the submitter’s custodian of 2257 records
Material produced prior to July 3, 1995, should be accompanied by a statement of exemption.
My main contentions are:
1. If they get over-broad, they won't stop anything. Take a look what has happened with spam. US ISPs (and for good reason) don't want it on their servers, so the spammers take to making accounts in other countries like China.
Same could happen here. People simply move their sites away from US based ISPs, and go overseas. Only way these people could prevent anyone (and mind you this includes adults) from seeing what they don't want them to see, is for the government to require the instillation of mandatory web filtering software (perhaps at the ISP) that blocks non-US based sites from being visable in the US.
Mind you, this could carry certain ridicule with it... Isn't that what China and North Korea does to prevent it's citizens from seeing things the government over there doesn't want them to see?
2. People's definition of "smut" can very. For some people it might be full nudity. For other's it could be someone in a bathing suite, showing a little thigh...
3. If they really go overboard on the "linking to another site" part...they could well end up with an unacceptable and overly burdensome situation in which if www.cnn.com showed a news article with a picture that didn't agree with certain someone's; to link to an entirely different and unrelated news story, one would need a complete dosier on everything cnn.com ever published to link to just one story :down:
4. A measure to deal with/prevent the exploitation of children in child pornography is reasonable and proper. But it should also be carefully defined so as not to get overly broad in matters that don't really have to deal with children (and could per chance, depending on the limits placed upon it) have nothing to do with sex either...