Heard about the new law banning nude pics?

[Phat_Matt_9inch]

I guess that as of midnight today the U.S. legislature has banned all nude pics on the net that are on sites that do not have documentation of the models ages. Are nude pics off of lpsg? Not being a member, I cannot check the gallery.

 

[Dominik20]

At your government I can imagine that uke:

 

[13788]

Krueger: I think this isn't true. The United States couldn't ban stuff on the internet, especially considering other countries post stuff on it.

 

[Phat_Matt_9inch]

Well, whether or not you think it is true or not, ratemyschlong.com is closed down due to it. I've heard others are as well.

 

[madame_zora]

It's panic. There's a duplicate thread in ETC where Mark posted that an injunction had been won. I don't know for how long, but nothing will change immediately. By the way, anyone can look in the gallery as long as you're over 18. It's free, it just limits the amount of pics you can view per day (I think it's 10).

 

[ericbear]

It isn't really a new law. Rather, the enforcement of an existing law (originally enacted in 1988), known as 18 U.S.C. 2257, has been expanded. The law requires that documentation (such a s a model release) be available to show that the involved person is over the age of 18 for any picture showing explicit content. Some links to various articles about this appear below:


The text of the law itself (courtesy of the US House of Representatives):
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb...%20%20%20%20%20
(Note that the law was actually enacted in 1988, but this is the 2003 revison of the text, which I believe is most current.)

The regulations for enforcing the law: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01...05/05-10107.htm
(Again, it's an old law, but new enforcement guidelines, regarding websites, cause the current concern.)

A PlanetOut article about it:
http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2005/06/21/1

 

[SomeGuyOverThere]

*bumpage*

One would have thought it can only apply if the website is based in the USA.

As the USA cannot enforce it's laws outside of it's borders.

 

[DC_DEEP]

C'mon, folks, don't be SHEEP. Before you panic and stampede with the rest of the herd, at least find the text of the law, and read it. Just do a google search on the particular law, and find a link that actually publishes the text. Lots of junk to read through, usually dates, definitions, and such... but then you get to the meat of the matter. Don't be afraid to research a bit. If you don't like what you read, then at least you are informed - then send letters to your senators and representatives, and let them know it is unacceptable. If we bombard them, do you think they will react?

I research USC (United States Code - our federal laws) all the time. You would be surprised what really is NOT in there that "they" tell you is. I posted on another thread about this very thing, with a bank demanding my social security number and claiming it was law. I stood my ground, they eventually admitted they lied to me.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by DC_DEEP@Jun 28 2005, 02:28 PM
C'mon, folks, don't be SHEEP. Before you panic and stampede with the rest of the herd, at least find the text of the law, and read it. Just do a google search on the particular law, and find a link that actually publishes the text. Lots of junk to read through, usually dates, definitions, and such... but then you get to the meat of the matter. Don't be afraid to research a bit. If you don't like what you read, then at least you are informed - then send letters to your senators and representatives, and let them know it is unacceptable. If we bombard them, do you think they will react?

I research USC (United States Code - our federal laws) all the time. You would be surprised what really is NOT in there that "they" tell you is. I posted on another thread about this very thing, with a bank demanding my social security number and claiming it was law. I stood my ground, they eventually admitted they lied to me.

[post=324784]Quoted post[/post]​

My brother is an attorney. He says that many regulations are written by the department of education, defense or which ever group that is beig disussed; So the entire regulaatoin is written by a bunch of buerocrarts and not a word of it is in the law. There is a law that they "base" their stuff on it. But if challenged, they have to admit that is not written anywhere inany federal law.

This is an attemp to stampede the geneal populatoin in doing something that they nkow they dnot have legal grouns to dol

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by Freddie53+Jun 28 2005, 03:45 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Freddie53 &#064; Jun 28 2005, 03:45 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-DC_DEEP@Jun 28 2005, 02:28 PM

[post=324784]Quoted post[/post]​

My brother is an attorney. He says that many regulations are written by the department of education, defense or which ever group that is beig disussed; So the entire regulaatoin is written by a bunch of buerocrarts and not a word of it is in the law. There is a law that they "base" their stuff on it. But if challenged, they have to admit that is not written anywhere inany federal law.

This is an attemp to stampede the geneal populatoin in doing something that they nkow they dnot have legal grouns to dol

[post=324792]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Ah, Freddie, thank you, you proved my point. Although I&#39;m sure that your brother is an exception to the rule, it would seem that most attorneys (and by extension, most lawmakers) must take a class in anti-ethics, and most do very well in that class. I don&#39;t know how some of these guys can live with themselves, knowing that their livelihood, their profession, their existence is based upon lying and deceiving people.

But more importantly, although I know it is boring, it is essential that anyone who has even a passing interest in preserving (and regaining) their freedoms as Americans MUST read, understand, and re-read the US Constitution beginning to end; pay special attention to Article IV, section 1, and Amendments I, III, IV, V, VI, VII, IX, X, XI, and XIV. Then start reading local, state, and federal laws. Without a working knowledge of the Constitution, and without scrutinizing subsequent law, there is no way individual citizens can understand what is going on right now in this country, and no way they can protect their own lives, liberty, and property.

Open challenge, and case in point: anyone who wants to rebut any of my posts in this thread, please first accept this challenge. Read US Constitution Article IV, sec. 1, then read Amendment XIV, then read H. R. 3396 (also known as the "Defense of Marriage Act", or DOMA). After reading these documents, explain to me how HR3396 does NOT violate the "full faith and credit" clause or the equal protection clause. Any takers?

This is just one of the blatant examples of our fine fellows in Washington, who should know better, pulling the wool. Without the proper challenges, these laws and codes and regulations stay on the books, and can be used or not, depending upon how the government wants to control any given group of people at any given time.

Our biggest problem here is that the general public is too lazy and/or stupid to think for themselves, they want someone else to chew up the knowledge and regurgitate it for them, telling them how to think. Freddie, this next phrase is obviously not directed at you, as you have demonstrated that you know how to think for yourself... every few years, a movie with some "controversial" content hits the screens. Immediately, far too many preachers (most of whom have only read synopses) will stand at the pulpit and tell their gullible congregations that the movie is evil, and they should not see it. Uh, any adult in that group should be able to think for themselves, decide if they want to see the move. If they see it and don&#39;t like it, fine. The sad part of this rant is that most of those will NOT see it, and then go about telling everyone they see how horrible the movie is, taking a 3rd or 4th party opinion and spreading it as their own. The same is happening with all this Homeland Security, Patriot Act, National Security, porn-on-the-net bullshit. Don&#39;t just take someone&#39;s word for it, see for yourself. What&#39;s the worst that can happen, you perhaps LEARN something?

 

[indianaman_04]

I think this sex on the web stuff is really starting to hit the fan. Last week all the yahoo chat rooms were disconnected, deactivated or whatever. The reason is they are trying to weed out all the sexual predators that go in the chat rooms. But they didn&#39;t just close those down, they closed ALL of them down. Ain&#39;t that some sh**&#33;&#33;

 

[DC_DEEP]

<sigh>

er, uh, ahem...

<SIGH>

<sigh>

 

[Simon9]

Do juries have the right to be fully informed as they once were in criminal cases even though many states/judges forbid it?

Would the Patriot Act fail to stand up to constitutional challenge?

Does the recent Supreme Court decision allowing local municipalities the "right" to decide whether or not to force families/businesses to sell their homes to developers via "eminent domain" a gross violation of traditional property rights?

Do "hate speech" laws violate the First Amendment?

Are most federal agencies in violation of the 9th & 10th amendments to the US Constitution?

Is the "War on Terror" largely a govt grab for more power (in a war that can never end -- just like our "War on Drugs")? And was the invasion of Iraq basically excused under that nebulous "War on Terror"?

The same answer applies to all. And do most Americans care? Ah, that&#39;s the other answer.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by Simon9@Jun 29 2005, 12:37 PM
Do juries have the right to be fully informed as they once were in criminal cases even though many states/judges forbid it?

Would the Patriot Act fail to stand up to constitutional challenge?

Does the recent Supreme Court decision allowing local municipalities the "right" to decide whether or not to force families/businesses to sell their homes to developers via "eminent domain" a gross violation of traditional property rights?

Do "hate speech" laws violate the First Amendment?

Are most federal agencies in violation of the 9th & 10th amendments to the US Constitution?

Is the "War on Terror" largely a govt grab for more power (in a war that can never end -- just like our "War on Drugs")? And was the invasion of Iraq basically excused under that nebulous "War on Terror"?

The same answer applies to all. And do most Americans care? Ah, that&#39;s the other answer.

[post=325041]Quoted post[/post]​

Regarding "hate speech" laws... when will the idiots/sheep/general population understand that there is a difference between SPEECH and ACTION? When the whole issue of flag-burning was sweeping the nation, there were some who said "you can&#39;t make it illegal, burning the flag is free speech." Well, the actual issue of burning the flag aside, the ACT of burning it is NOT SPEECH. Hate speech, as offensive as it may be, is protected under the First Amendment. Acting upon that hate speech is another issue, entirely.

The freaks in the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church have every right to SPEAK about how much they hate homosexuals. They do not have any right to take many of the actions they have taken over the years.

Klansmen have a protected right to SAY that they think "all niggers, jews, and queers oughta be killed." They do NOT have the right to molest, harrass, or kill ANYONE, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

As for the 9th & 10th Amendments, it would seem that the Feds get away with ignoring those to the greatest extent possible. Along with the 14th. I just keep wondering why there HAVEN&#39;T been challenges to that in the courts. Although I do understand that there are a very few, very isolated instances in which eminent domain is justified, I guarantee you that if the government tried to take my property to build a baseball stadium, the swat team would have to drag my dead body off the property - but only after I take out as many of them as possible, by whatever means necessary.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by Simon9@Jun 29 2005, 11:37 AM
Do juries have the right to be fully informed as they once were in criminal cases even though many states/judges forbid it?

Would the Patriot Act fail to stand up to constitutional challenge?

Does the recent Supreme Court decision allowing local municipalities the "right" to decide whether or not to force families/businesses to sell their homes to developers via "eminent domain" a gross violation of traditional property rights?

Do "hate speech" laws violate the First Amendment?

Are most federal agencies in violation of the 9th & 10th amendments to the US Constitution?

Is the "War on Terror" largely a govt grab for more power (in a war that can never end -- just like our "War on Drugs")? And was the invasion of Iraq basically excused under that nebulous "War on Terror"?

The same answer applies to all. And do most Americans care? Ah, that&#39;s the other answer.

[post=325041]Quoted post[/post]​

When it is too late they will. When they realize that the government has control over their bathroom visits, feeding habits, and of course all sex activities they will. Right now, they are enjoying the freedoms they are about to lose.

 

[DanielForever]

Maybe this has already been said,

the thing was started in 1988 by Regan/Bush Sr. (i dont know my american history too well), and now its inforced by Bush Jr, it seems to me that far be it from being a come down of internet perfesion in a plight to protect the world from the terrors of the erection and the nipple, just the Religious Right trying to take over by disguising their hate crimes over sexual freedom as protection

i&#39;ve always wonders, how in one of the amendments it says that religion and politics are not allowed to come together, but you swear before a jury on the bible and a lot of polititions say GOD BLESS AMERICA, also, there a few senators that are also ministers

and in some states, isn&#39;t homosexuality illegal? how is that justified

its beyong comprehention to me

In the UK there is no aggresive religious tyranny, there is just oversensitive compensation for other cultures which only means a loss of British identitiy