New Rules for Nude Photos

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Lex, Jul 26, 2006.

  1. Lex

    Lex
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,536
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
    [SIZE=-1]On July 27, 2006 - President Bush is scheduled to sign into law:[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=-1]H.R. 4472 - Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.
    [/SIZE]


    [SIZE=-1]This bill changes the requirements for all USA based web sites on all photos showing nude images. Each nude image photo will require formal documentation to be on file of a persons age and physical street address.[/SIZE]


    This is HUGE folks. It could change many of the sites that you frequent.[SIZE=-1]
    [/SIZE]
    Stated Purpose
    An act to protect children from sexual exploitation and violent crime, to prevent child abuse and child pornography, to promote Internet safety, and to honor the memory of Adam Walsh and other child crime victims.



    Bullet Points - Title V of H.R. 4472
    Analysis by Reed Lee, summarized by Legislative Affairs Director Kat Sunlove

    1. Title 18, Section 2257, in effect for some 18 years, has never been enforced by the Justice Department. The absence of enforcement, however, has not harmed the Justice Department’s ability or willingness to prosecute child pornography. The Department is actively doing so, and conviction rates are high.

    2. Title 18, Section 2257 has never been the subject of any hearing in either house of Congress.
    The section had its origins in a recommendation of the Meese Commission, even though its own findings determined that the United States adult entertainment industry had no connection with child pornography.

    3. Child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment but non-obscene sexually explicit material, which does not involve children, is protected.
    The burden of proof is on the party denying protection to show that a constitutional line has been crossed. Section 2257’s most basic flaw is that it ignores this constitutional presumption that expression is legal if no children are involved.

    4. Section 2257 imposes burdensome record-keeping requirements on expression which is not even imaginably child pornography.
    Identification information must be gathered and recorded, then cross-indexed four different ways and stored in ways that are in some cases impossible. Ministerial errors are a federal felony calling for five years incarceration.

    5. All re-publishers must also obtain and store the records.
    Proposed changes to Section 2257 mandate widespread record-shifting, as copies of the required records are made and transferred to each subsequent re-publisher. The law exposes performers to the dangers of identity theft, stalking, and worse. In some cases, a re-publisher is required to keep records even where the initial publisher was not.

    6. Section 2257 suffers from over-inclusiveness.
    It burdens thousands of expressive works which are not child pornography in an effort to suppress the much smaller amount of actual child pornography. Needless to say, it is unlikely that a child pornographer would keep self-incriminating records of his crime.

    7. A better solution
    would be a requirement that a primary producer check performer identification documents, create and maintain the records, but with a penalty analogous to those provided for in connection with the I-9 forms that all employers must prepare.

    [SIZE=-1]
    [/SIZE]
     
  2. Gillette

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,309
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    14
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    What specifically will this mean for LPSG users. Will members be able to post photos of themselves along with the information ( information to be kept private of course )?

    How will moderators or whomever regulates such postings verify that the pics are of the person claiming ownership of them?
     
  3. ManiacalMadMan

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    It does in some ways seem a little excessive especially when reading through the points you listed

    1)The Justice Department has managed quite well without this law
    2)No connection has been found between child pornography and adult entertainment industry
    3)Child pornography is already an unprotected item but adult non obscene material is protected
    4)That 4 way cross-reference and the 5 year incarceration for violation (even through clericaL error) is what really should scare people.
    5) and 6) are clear on their own
    7)Hard to say whether or not that is really a better solution

    In the entire picture I can see the meaning of this where there is a desire to protect children The silly part of course is that predators and pedophilies have been around since time began and this dog and pony show is little more than just a bunch of theatrics...still, if one child is protected, even though the paper work and absurdity may be a pain in the ass nusiance, couldn't it be somehow argued that it is worth it? After all isn't it the child who is most important? The internet will always have loopholes and back doors and side entry to get to the legal adult material we may just have to put a little more effort into getting to it
     
  4. rob_just_rob

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Nowhere near you
    This is what happens when countries don't have a constitution to protect individual rights.
     
  5. Bryan_Lyte2

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CA, between Rosamond, and Palmdale
    Um...Am I the only one who heard "will require formal documentation to be on file of a persons age and physical street address." That intails that our privacy just got thrown out of the window.

    As for how this "protects" against child pornagraphy, let's just assume a child not of leagal age does post a nude picture. Now under this law the photo has to be cross referenced with an age (*ahem*) and street adress? Here's the turn, some loser pedaphile hacks the system and goes on a search for his favorite age and location, but it dosent have to just be the pedophiles either. This could open up a whole new stalking and raping frenzy (assuming this law passes and works).

    Plain and simple If this goes into effect I'm deleting all of my pictures from every site.
     
  6. jeff black

    jeff black <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    11,866
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    CANADA
    Exactly, well said , Bryan.

    I don't like the idea of people just watching where I live, and having the government be like...

    " Ok, person # 534632w345A has a 8 inch dick, a fairly healthy sexual appetite and likes to frequent sex sites at 12, 4 and 10pm."

    That just creeps me out. My pics will be gone as well.:biggrin1:
     
  7. I hate to say it ... but mine will definitely be delisted if this law passes :mad: grrrr
     
  8. Ummagumma

    Ummagumma New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Messages:
    859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not mine. They say I'm supposeda' pay my taxes too. Pssh.

    Bring em on I say!

    :BoomSmilie_anim:
    :BoomSmilie_anim:
    :gasthrower:
    :gasthrower:
    :BoomSmilie_anim:
    :BoomSmilie_anim:
    :gasthrower:
    :gasthrower:
     
  9. Countryguy63

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    14,488
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,448
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    near Monterey, Calif.
    Verified:
    Photo
    NOOOO! Say It Aint So :yikes:!!! Bryan,Jeff and That Other Guy Gone??:17:

    I haven't even been able to find someone to help me get pictures yet (anybody wanna help? :biggrin1:) and now this? Doggone my luck!

    Serrious question.. I can't tell if we're going to be required to list our personal info on our pictures, or if the site owner will just have to have the info to referance to?
     
  10. Lex

    Lex
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,536
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
    The burden of keeping the records would fall onto the website, if I am reading and interpreting this correctly.
     
  11. D_alex8

    D_alex8 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    8,602
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    Photo and video hosting on another server outside the US might well be the way ahead. :rolleyes:

    And people wonder why it's called rapidshare.de already. :wink:
     
  12. Ummagumma

    Ummagumma New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Messages:
    859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, many of us gold members already give our address with the credit card info, no? And doesn't having a credit card kinda prove you're 18 to boot? Yes I realize there's no proof the people in the photos are the people with the credit cards though...

    *grabs Visa and camera*
     
  13. BarebackJack

    BarebackJack New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    320
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    This piece of shit legislation has come down from Alberto Gonzales, who introduced these new regulations about a year ago. They were forestalled by a supreme court judge as being unconstitutional, and the Free Speech Coalition temporarily blocked the passage of this thing.

    While it doesn't really do a damned thing to stop child pornography, aside from changing the types of identification the US government will consider acceptable (no more student ID's for instance), and considering that nearly all kiddie porn is produced by "regular people" and not by porn studios, it does have the effect of chilling our first amendment rights and it places an unreasonable burden for record keeping on anyone in the adult entertainment industry. It allows federal agents to perform search and seizure raids upon producers of adult content without warrants and allows them to seize anything they feel is questionably legal on the premises. And it assumes that all adult content producers are guilty until proven innocent. As well, it requires that adult content producers distribute sensitive information about each performer to EVERY reseller in the country who redistributes their content. In other words, if you do a porn video or pose nude for photos, this law will require the producer to distribute your driver's license info to anyone who sells that content, thereby making it more difficult for producers to find models willing to have their real names, ages, and addresses sent out to God knows who. Can we say "invasion of privacy" and "identity theft"?

    It's really only a back-door way of shutting down the adult entertainment industry. And we the citizens need to contact our representatives to stop it before we lose even more of our rights to this misdirected administration.

    I have a lot of commentary on my site if anyone is interested in reading it. The commentary points out the serious flaws in this new legislation, and there are links to the people you should contact to try to reverse this whole mess. Otherwise sites like this could disappear thanks to Alberto Gonzales and George Worthless Bush.

    LINK: http://www.barebackjack.com/outburst.html

    Also, here are a few posters I designed regarding the new laws and the US Department of Injustice. They are re-designs of old war posters for the most part. Feel free to use them on your blogs and websites:
     

    Attached Files:

  14. BarebackJack

    BarebackJack New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    320
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    You're missing the point. The onus is going to be on the owners and webmasters of this site and all others like it. If they allow your dick photos to be posted without collecting the required sensitive and personal info, then they run the risk of being fined and incarcerated for 5 years. So the chances are that these sites will start shutting down because the responsibility of keeping and maintaining the proper information will be huge.

    If you move, the law will require the webmaster/owner to keep his records updated. Well, let's say you don't report your move to every website you have your photos on... the webmaster can technically go to jail because of that.

    It's a totally fucked up law, and it (once again) takes the burden of being a parent off of the parent and assigns it to the webmaster.

    Read my rants at http://www.barebackjack.com/outburst.html for more info.
     
  15. D_Herin_Ghan

    D_Herin_Ghan Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    0
    Same, fuck authority.:madfawk:
     
  16. SurferGirlCA

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,175
    Likes Received:
    148
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Los Angeles (CA, US)
    So this bill has passed Congress and just needs to be signed by the President? If so, I'd guess it's gonna become a law then. Did they include war on terror, securing our borders, and/or 9/11 references in this, too? :rolleyes:
     
  17. SurferGirlCA

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,175
    Likes Received:
    148
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Los Angeles (CA, US)
    Hmmm, well I don't have an edit option for my last post, but I just heard on NPR that the Prez signed the bill into law this afternoon. You were right, Lex.
     
  18. ManiacalMadMan

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,107
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male


    Thank you ever so much for not reading EVERYTHING which I wrote about this and while I am here ranting let me add other things which are of a positive nature regarding this bill. There will now be DNA samples taken frome EVERY sex offender, there will now be a National Sex Registry.
    As I stated before, I don't particularly like the bill however if one child is spared from the ordeal of torture administered by a pervert pedophile then in my view it is worth it. If you don't care for that then fine I am not forcing you to Think about some of the positives and try working with that instead of only the negatives How would you feel if you had a loved one who fell victim to a pedophile and then found that this bill if it had been enacted would have kept that child from being harmed? Think of it that way and similarly with the DNA and sex registry there will be added help for others who are victimized in sexual attacks of the non-pedophile sort


     
  19. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    I'd hold off a bit on the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Just last year, Resident Bush signed 18 USC 2257, a similar law specifying all sorts of mandatory recordkeeping for websites. Lawsuits followed, and federal judges were willing to grant injunctions on provisions deemed too restrictive and infringing on First Amendment rights. Only a portion of that original law is still enforceable today.

    Many of the requirements in HR 4472 are nearly identical to the requirements struck down a year ago. I believe the Republican 'leadership' in Congress knows that these requirements are unconstitutional, and are passing them anyway for two reasons: (1) it's an election year, and they need more red meat to throw to their base; (2) another round of litigation will be expensive for producers of adult entertainment, and while Congress can't make erotica go away, they can play games to eat up their profits.

    I expect that the law in the form passed today will not stand, although some of its provisions may survive the legal process.

    The Free Speech Coalition, which Lex linked to in his original post, is an outstanding champion in the ongoing battle for free online speech. Please consider sending a small contribution their way to help support their efforts.
     
  20. Lex

    Lex
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,536
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
    Mindseye--thanks for that clarification (about this being a regurgitated version of prior, equally shitty legislation that was mostly struck down).

    I got this from another site I belong to, so I just thought I would post it here (I was surpirsed I beat DC DEEP to it).
     
Draft saved Draft deleted