18 USC 2257

BayouREUben

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Posts
22
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
146
Age
34
Strict federal regulations that are scheduled to take effect later this week could cripple many Internet porn sites and burden other sites with adult photos in personal ads or retail offerings.


Under the new rules, which expand the enforcement of an existing law known as 18 U.S.C. 2257, every Web site with explicit adult content -- including sites that allow for member-generated content -- must keep records proving the people portrayed in photos or videos are over the age of 18. webmasters who don't comply face federal prison terms.


The adult entertainment industry and advocates for online speech and privacy are fighting the regulations and hoping to put them on hold by Thursday, when they're scheduled to take effect. But explicit sites, including many within the LGBT community, are already preparing for the worst. Some are busy updating their paperwork, while others plan to simply go out of business, at least temporarily, or move their operations offshore.


The Free Speech Coalition (FSC), an industry trade association, filed a federal lawsuit last week in Denver, requesting that a judge either throw out the new regulations or issue an injunction that would put them on hold. A hearing on the coalition's request is scheduled for Thursday. (PlanetOut Inc., owner of Gay.com and PlanetOut.com, is a member of the FSC.)


The FSC argues that the new expanded rules are too strict, ignore the Constitution and violate the privacy of people depicted in the photos -- whose real names, addresses and ages will find their way into the hands of countless webmasters.


"It's so inclusive that it's really absurd," said Annalee Newitz, policy analyst with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an online rights group that opposes the new rules and plans to file a brief in support of the FSC. She added that the guidelines could be interpreted to include news outlets that posted photos from the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.


Will Doherty, executive director of the Online Policy Group in San Francisco, condemned the rules as a political attack.


"Unilaterally changing interpretation of the law to require that every Web site owner check and record IDs from all those who appear in explicit images is an outrageous attempt by a repressive administration to effectively halt the publication and exchange of many images of adults -- including those of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons -- engaged in consensual explicit activity," Doherty told the PlanetOut Network.


The U.S. Department of Justice, however, has argued that the restrictions will boost the government's ability to fight child pornography.


"People are absolutely freaking out," said Keith Webb, vice president of Titan Media, which bills itself as the world's largest producer of gay adult entertainment. He predicts the regulations could wipe out half of all porn sites on the Internet.


As a producer of adult content, Titan Media has long been required to keep records proving that its models and performers are 18 or older. But the new regulations require anyone who posts sexually explicit content -- even if it came from somewhere else -- to keep the records on hand and available for inspection. (Vintage porn, created before July 3, 1995, is exempt.)


"Blackdogue," the webmaster of a nude celebrity male site, said he plans to shut down his free operation on Tuesday because of the regulations. "Since I get my images from online sources which do not provide proof of age of models, I am not able to maintain such records," said the webmaster, who asked that his real name not be revealed.


Under the government's definition, the rules encompass both hard-core and soft-core photos and videos as long as there's sexual activity -- even if it's solo.


It doesn't matter if a site is paid or free; the many sites that steal content from other sites aren't immune either, and for them the threat of a prison term will probably be much greater than the often-remote possibility of a copyright infringement suit. Apparently, even personal ads, banner ads and DVD covers will fall under the regulations if they're sexually explicit.


The regulations don't specifically target the LGBT community, but some observers suspect it won't take much for the government to take a closer look at gay adult content.


"If you have a straight male committee checking out the content, they may see a Web site featuring twinks as being something to attack more than Web sites with 18-year-old girls just because of personal bias," said Don Mike, vice president of sales at World Wide Content, which distributes online porn. "If this is all driven by the religious right, they may feel they can add 'stomping out homosexuality' to their quest for purification of the Internet."

Gay.com
 
1

13788

Guest
IrishSurfer: Shhh!

If we whisper they won't hear us!
 

yaoifun

Just Browsing
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Posts
743
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Age
36
Location
Northeastern US
Thats easy. Limit posting/viewing galleries to premium members, which you must be 18 to do anyway. LPSG will never die! well just make another board without pics thats all. If your that desperate to see the pics, just ask the people. Easily avoided. I think marks doing a good job anyway.
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Originally posted by yaoifun@Jun 22 2005, 06:50 PM
Thats easy. Limit posting/viewing galleries to premium members, which you must be 18 to do anyway. LPSG will never die!
[post=323255]Quoted post[/post]​

Nope -- the article didn't make it clear, but the statute itself specifies certain things about the records that must be kept (for example, they must be in writing) -- so just limiting the galleries to premium members wouldn't quite do it.

However, it's waaaaay too early to panic on this. Two previous and somewhat similar laws that Congress passed to suppress sexual expression online were struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. It's likely that this law will not stand either.

IANAL, but my advice is to wait and see what happens first.
 

MisterMark

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Posts
2,021
Media
10
Likes
126
Points
383
Location
Palm Springs, CA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I just received a call from my attorney who asked me if I'm a member of the Free Speech Coalition. I said, "Yes." He responded, "That's the right answer. You're going to be very happy with something that's just happened." He then said that he had to go and couldn't talk about it right now. I imagine he's calling all of his clients - hopefully with good news!

I know we've got a few Republicans here, but folks, I'm tellin' ya, the Republican Party does NOT stand for keeping government out of people's lives anymore. This drive to eliminate any sort of sexual free speech on the internet is pushed by the right-wing base of the Republican Party, who have Bush and his cronies wrapped around their fingers.

I'm not telling anyone to switch political parties, but if you enjoy the LPSG, I would highly recommend that you become a member of the Free Speech Coalition. I can hope and pray that the new regulations will either be struck down or put on hold indefinitely, but even if that happens, this battle is not over and may never be over as long as we have millions of people who believe that they have the right to restrict communication in this country - sexual communication or otherwise.
 

mindseye

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Posts
3,399
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Originally posted by MisterMark@Jun 22 2005, 07:07 PM
He then said that he had to go and couldn't talk about it right now. I imagine he's calling all of his clients - hopefully with good news!

FSC filed a motion for a temporary restraining order on behalf of its members pending a more comprehensive lawsuit. No ruling has been issued yet, but the United States District Court of Colorado has a really positive track record on free-speech issues. (They picked the right District Court to hear the motion!)
 

KinkGuy

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Posts
2,794
Media
0
Likes
156
Points
268
Age
70
Location
southwest US
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Originally posted by MisterMark@Jun 22 2005, 06:07 PM
the Republican Party does NOT stand for keeping government out of people's lives anymore.  This drive to eliminate any sort of sexual free speech on the internet is pushed by the right-wing base of the Republican Party, who have Bush and his cronies wrapped around their fingers.

this battle is not over and may never be over as long as we have millions of people who believe that they have the right to restrict communication in this country - sexual communication or otherwise.
[post=323260]Quoted post[/post]​

"sexual communication"?
ALL COMMUNICATION THAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE $$$/VOTES POSITION OF THE FARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RIGHT.

Fuck you and your quaint little first ammendment rights.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
 

MisterMark

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Posts
2,021
Media
10
Likes
126
Points
383
Location
Palm Springs, CA
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Originally posted by mindseye@Jun 22 2005, 05:31 PM
FSC filed a motion for a temporary restraining order on behalf of its members pending a more comprehensive lawsuit.

Actually, I knew they were filing a restraining order. The tone of my attorney's voice suggested that something bigger and better might have happened.

If it was only that an injunction had been accepted, I'll be happy with that too - for now.
 

B_DoubleMeatWhopper

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2002
Posts
4,941
Media
0
Likes
111
Points
268
Age
45
Location
Louisiana
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Even if 18 U.S.C. 2257 were to be enforced as suggested, it wouldn't mean the end of LPSG. 'Adult photos' are not what LPSG is all about. The Large Penis Support Group existed for years without photo galleries and avatars, and could do so again. There is so much here that does not fall within what is being suggested, so even if certain features of the site must be restricted, or even removed, it would remain a valuable resource.
 
1

13788

Guest
hung_big:
Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@Jun 23 2005, 12:18 AM
Even if 18 U.S.C. 2257 were to be enforced as suggested, it wouldn't mean the end of LPSG. 'Adult photos' are not what LPSG is all about. The Large Penis Support Group existed for years without photo galleries and avatars, and could do so again. There is so much here that does not fall within what is being suggested, so even if certain features of the site must be restricted, or even removed, it would remain a valuable resource.
[post=323339]Quoted post[/post]​

Which, in retrospect, might be a good idea. If anything, the gallery has attrated more trolls than anything else. I like the extra touch, but it's the people, not the cocks on the people that count most.
 

KinkGuy

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Posts
2,794
Media
0
Likes
156
Points
268
Age
70
Location
southwest US
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Yes, we could MAKE this particular site evolve and survive. But I think what is really at stake here has nothing to do with pics of dicks and balls, but the first step in a really well orchestrated process to limit, remove and restrict the civil and Constitutional rights of American citizens.

This I fear, may only be the beginning. Hell, the Public Broadcasting Corporation (along with the major media) has been completely controlled and "edited for content" since 2000.
 

B_DoubleMeatWhopper

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2002
Posts
4,941
Media
0
Likes
111
Points
268
Age
45
Location
Louisiana
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Originally posted by KinkGuy@Jun 23 2005, 04:46 AM
Yes, we could MAKE this particular site evolve and survive. But I think what is really at stake here has nothing to do with pics of dicks and balls, but the first step in a really well orchestrated process to limit, remove and restrict the civil and Constitutional rights of American citizens.

I agree, but I was addressing the title of the thread, which is 18 USC 2257, This could be the death of LPSG..., so I was commenting only on the survival of this particular site.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Originally posted by KinkGuy@Jun 23 2005, 05:37 AM
Effectively chastised and humbled.

*backs away from topic.
[post=323376]Quoted post[/post]​


That's right, back that ass up! Right over here, if you please.
 

Dr Rock

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Posts
3,577
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
258
Location
who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
Sexuality
Unsure
Originally posted by mindseye@Jun 22 2005, 11:57 PM
However, it's waaaaay too early to panic on this. Two previous and somewhat similar laws that Congress passed to suppress sexual expression online were struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. It's likely that this law will not stand either.
[post=323257]Quoted post[/post]​
that's probably true, but the fact that this shit is being pushing in the first place is sick enough.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+Jun 23 2005, 03:42 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper &#064; Jun 23 2005, 03:42 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@Jun 23 2005, 07:29 AM
That&#39;s right, back that ass up&#33; Right over here, if you please.

Jana&#33; You say that as if I don&#39;t have designs of my own for Kink&#39;s ass&#33; You must learn to share&#33;
[post=323439]Quoted post[/post]​
[/b][/quote]


We can toss him back and forth, he won&#39;t complain if we tape his mouth shut.
 

Shelby

Experimental Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
2,129
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Location
in the internet
Originally posted by MisterMark@Jun 22 2005, 05:07 PM

I know we&#39;ve got a few Republicans here, but folks, I&#39;m tellin&#39; ya, the Republican Party does NOT stand for keeping government out of people&#39;s lives anymore.
[post=323260]Quoted post[/post]​

You&#39;re right and I hate it. Barry Goldwater RIP must be spinning in his grave.
 

robertomuro

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Posts
132
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Age
34
Location
Ask me
Surely the easiest thing for any webmaster to do is to just move a site which may violate this law outside US territory. In this day and age, it is a very easy thing to do.

There were similar problems in the past with restrictions on the export of encryption technology which affected everything from web browsers to PGP. All they did was print out the source, fax it overseas, compile it there and wala, no problem ;) Where there&#39;s a will there&#39;s a way as they say.
 

KinkGuy

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Posts
2,794
Media
0
Likes
156
Points
268
Age
70
Location
southwest US
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Originally posted by madame_zora+Jun 23 2005, 11:31 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madame_zora &#064; Jun 23 2005, 11:31 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@Jun 23 2005, 03:42 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora
@Jun 23 2005, 07:29 AM
That&#39;s right, back that ass up&#33; Right over here, if you please.


Jana&#33; You say that as if I don&#39;t have designs of my own for Kink&#39;s ass&#33; You must learn to share&#33;
[post=323439]Quoted post[/post]​


We can toss him back and forth, he won&#39;t complain if we tape his mouth shut.
[post=323479]Quoted post[/post]​
[/b][/quote]

OK, start tossing, but why seal off 1/3 of the fun with duck tape?