PeterDavid.net

So, in addition to flag-burning, Peter David also supports pornography involving minors?

Classic. Also funny.

Uhm, I was going to comment along that same logic, but without the inflammatory style.

All porn magazines have always kept records verifying the legal age of the models. Why should a website be exempt just because their media is electronic?

My question is, are you really disagreeing with that law, PAD?

I have nothing against porn involving consenting adults. My husband loves looking at porn too, which is fine by me. Porn is of course first of all a male thing because although I can also appreciate the beauty in the opposite sex, I don`t think there are many women who would spend a lot of time visiting such sites, to put it mildly.

But stopping child porn has absolutely nothing to do with censorship, it is about fighting child abuse. My husband agrees with me here. It happens sometimes that he loads a picture where you really wonder how old that model is. It immediately gets deleted.

No, I would even welcome it if this law could be introduced world wide.

Have you guys seen this yet?

"The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html

Hmmm.

As much as it pains me to come down on the side of a stopped clock like X-Ray, it would appear that, in this instance, he has doffed his hat, and, indeed, shows that he has a point.

On the face of it, I can't see the harm in requiring websites to document that the models shown are 18 years old. It would seem to protect both the site and the people downloading the pics. Not to mention making sure that underage models aren't exploited.

On the other hand, I'd like to hear a reasoned opposing arguement, if there is one. I may be missing something here.

Oh, by the way, Baerbel, I don't think that it was PAD who posted this item. He generally signs his, doesn't he?

1Says it was Glenn who posted it. My only question concerning the whole thing involves foreign sites... where child porn restrictions are either non-existent or just not as enforced... or simply accepting of younger ages. Seems to me, they are the bigger perpetrators of such junk so I don't see how this would stop them. Granted, the fact that it might eliminate most of those annoying yahoo profiles that clutter up the directory... well, that would be nice... except it will probably just make the pics invisible which is one of the easiest ways to spot a fake profile so it really won't help there.
Nevermind.
Oh well, I guess the hard core pervs are going to have to go back to the OLD ways of trading the pics and vids. Poor guys. Guess that means attendance at comic cons will go up.

I think the point is that a site with ostensibly "of age" models could be prosecuted for a violation that a less zealous administration wouldn't get their ankle-length knickers in a twist over.

I htink the point Glenn was trying to make was that websites that allow people to post personals with pornographic or nude iimages of themselves are also subject to this law. For example, if I were to post a nude pic of myself on a personal at Gay.com, the website owners would have to have legal proof that I am of age. If they don't then the website and I are in violation of this law.

You know, I consider myself fairly liberal and about as pro-First Amendment as they come, but this can't reasonably be called censorship. Yes, there's the whole "slippery slope" argument, but until the government actually starts overreaching, I really don't see anything wrong with forcing owners of pornographic websites to make sure they're actually obeying the law.

I also don't think that requiring proof of age to be a form of censorship, unless you think child pornography should be protected as art?

So everyone agrees with me, the eeeevil X-Ray. Yet Peter David cannot respond, because he is too haughty to comment on my posts. He's "donne" with me, remember? He thinks he's "better" than me, the evil and deranged Bush lover. "Better," apparently, because he is a "free thinker" who supports flag burning and porno involving minors!

Classic. Also funny.

I also don't think that requiring proof of age to be a form of censorship

It's one thing if you're the one who made the image... that was the law up until today.  Under the new regulations, I could post a pornographic image in these comments, and Peter David would be required to present the proof of age of the models shown therein, or risk ten years in prison.  Even if the people shown therein are obviously not minors.

That's why it will have absolutely no effect on child pornography, and will have every effect on the display and hosting of any image that would make your grandmother or pastor blush.

"That's why it will have absolutely no effect on child pornography, and will have every effect on the display and hosting of any image that would make your grandmother or pastor blush."
---------

Oh God ..... not MORALITY!

NO NO NO!

Anything but THAT!

We must remain free to post animal sex pictures and show 5 year olds in porno scenes!!!

X, X, X, X,

Man. I try to defend you, but when you post with such sarcasm and whatnot, it really tests my patience and makes me want to NOT speak up next time someone calls you a nitwit and tell you to shut your trap.

It's not censorship so much as creating the oft-mentioned "chilling effect" by demonstrating a propensity and a willingness to go after people who aren't doing anything wrong. Meanwhile you can sneak a nuke through any port in the country, provided there are no dirty pictures in the same shipping container.

As has been mentioned, the problem with this new interpretation comes in when the site hosting the images is not the originator of the content.

They were discussing this issue on the radio this morning, and a webmaster of an adult site called in. His site purchases content from the originator of the pictures. Previously, that originator would be the one to keep the records proving the ages of the models. Under this new interpretation, the webmaster (we'll call his site "Site A") would have to obtain these records from the producer. Likewise, if a site (we'll call it "Site B") offering images and/or samples as links to "Site A" would also have to obtain these records.

Another question brought up is the same one that's come up many other times 'round here. Namely, what exactly is "pornographic?" Explicit sexual content? Implicit sexual content? Full frontal nudity? Topless women? Women in lingerie? Women in bathing suits? Pictures a la Maxim? The cover of Cosmopolitan (which, in some retail outlets is covered the same way as a Playboy or Penthouse)?

This new interpretation will do little to stem the tide of child pornography. I mean, think about it logically...child pornographers are already breaking the laws already on the books. Nothing exists to prevent them from breaking this new interpretation, either.

Rather, the only noticable effect will be those who run adult sites who don't break the law and either will not or cannot obtain the records now required. Such records are between the model and the photographer/videographer/production company. To require the individual, independent sites to hold such records would be akin to, for instance, your employer being required to provide a copy of your I.D. to any and all other companies your company does business with.

Of course, the supporters of this interpretation have made a great strategic move: support it, and have to play along with their (thinly) veiled attempt to rid the U.S. of material they find objectionable. Or, oppose it, and be branded as being a "supporter of child pornography."

Nytewing, it's even more complex than that caller said.

As an experiment, I went to an adult website. I clicked on an image I found intriguing. It directed me to another hosting site, with its own plethora of images. When I (failing ot find the original image) clicked on a similar picture, I was directed to yet another hosting site. In the end, before I actually got to something vaguely similar to the first image (never found the original), I had gone through no less than five separate sites, each of which had obviously linked their content from other producers. This law would require that records of the models' ages be kept not only at the original site, but at each echo site. Even worse, some of the links I found en route were obviously from domains in Denmark, Germany, and (I think) Tahiti. Each of these places has consent laws which differ from those in the US, and are unlikely to obey a law passed by the US Congress. Therefore, the hosts of each of the echo sites could wind up going to jail for ten years for each instance of an image recorded in a place where such records are not kept.

Seems just a tad over the top to me...

that was the law up until today. Under the new regulations, I could post a pornographic image in these comments, and Peter David would be required to present the proof of age of the models shown therein, or risk ten years in prison. Even if the people shown therein are obviously not minors.

The "obviously not" ones aren't the core of the regulation. Traci Lords passed for an adult for quite some time, beginning at age 15.

The logic of the new regulation is this: if you are going to distribute a product, it is your responsibility to ensure that your product is legal. This is not a huge burden, and it is not censorship, anymore than employment records are an infringement upon freedom of association. The better argument isn't that it's censorship, but that it's anticompetitive; large commercial web sites have the staff available to maintain the necessary records, but the paperwork burden on small porn entrepreneurs is horrific.

As to the idea of you posting something that would get PAD in trouble, unless you clear it with him beforehand, I think he's safe. You can't be punished for something you didn't know you did.

PAD, I know that Glenn helps with your site or something, but man, you should limit his starting threads. His ideas of censorship are laughable!

Magazines and porn companies that do buisness currently have to abide by this law. If I am wrong please let me know.
On the other hand I send my mom a cute picture of my daughter in the tub. Does that mean I can have my computer siezed and be charged for a crime?
When you make a law people tend to use it and interpret it like the bible. In as many ways as there are people.

Someone should tell our resident troll that PAD didn't even MAKE the initial post, so his lack of comment on it doesn't mean anything in any direction.

Jonathan (the other one),

You're absolutely right. Since my post was already going to be long, I just kept my example to two tiers. ;-)

Thanks, though, for bringing up the point of some sites containing material originating in areas not obligated to abide by this new interpretation of a U.S. law. You're exactly on-point with that, as well.

****************************
John Zacharias,

Magazines and porn companies that do buisness currently have to abide by this law. If I am wrong please let me know.

You are not wrong in that the producers of the material must indeed keep such records. The new interpretation, however, would be like saying that Barnes & Noble, Borders, Waldenbooks, your local Kwik-E-Mart, as well as any/all other retailers carrying such magazines and/or videos be required to keep copies of those records on file.

"Someone should tell our resident troll that PAD didn't even MAKE the initial post, so his lack of comment on it doesn't mean anything in any direction."
-------

Of COURSE not! Peter David only allowed the comment to be posted on peterdavid.net, and allows it to STAY on peterdavid.net.

This, of course, implies no endorsement. The fact that his name is the domain is a total coincidence! And there are LOTS of posts here Peter David totally disagrees with! Let's count them...

Oops, there aren't any.

Not a single one.

Never mind.

He didnt post the topic, someone else did.

And frankly. I dont really see a problem with this. If they need proof of age, then more power to them.

But then again it may be a bit hard to get all that done for stuff on a website, Unless they have the models show a birth certifcate and ID before doing anything.

Let me first state that porn with children is wrong. Now that that's out there, we can address the issue of adults looking at adult oriented material.

It's not the place of the goverment to "save our children", it's the parents that should be using software to "protect" children, or in a more radical notion, actually monitor and pay attention to what their children are doing.

People seem to have issues with this topic, however, when i went to see Dawn of the Dead last summer (An R movie), at least 1/2 of the audience was under the age of 10. We can't have our kids see people having sex, but we CAN have them watch zombies eat one people and get their heads blown off.

Further, the penalty doesn't fit the crime at all! But i won't even begin to touch that subject!

This is another attempt and attack by the Republicans on the gay community. Is it any coincidence that there is a debate on Capital Hill regarding cutting of PBS funding after a lesbian couple were profiled on a PBS children's show?

The larger issue isn't protecting our children from porn, but protecting our children from gays.....

What makes this possible censorship is that the way the laws written, what it claims to do and it's actual intent are two different things. On the surface of it, it is just a law to protect children from being in pornographic sites. Huzzah to that, of course. But... there are already stringent child pornography laws. The purpose of this law is to make web site owners go through a long and lengthy process of verifying all adult content on their site. This will be fine for the bigger sites affiliated with pornographic video companies as they already have this on file in compliance with existing laws for video, but the free galleries will probably have a lot harder time of it, often because they get their pictures from other sources. So, in effect, they are just trying to get sites to throw in the towel and give up.

This is where it can be viewed as censorship. The net effect of the law is the destruction of many porn sites.

On the other hand, you could argue that this sort of law HAS been in effect for YEARS for video tape and that they are just extending it to the "new" medium of the internet. I'm a bit on the fence about it.

"On the other hand, you could argue that this sort of law HAS been in effect for YEARS for video tape and that they are just extending it to the "new" medium of the internet. I'm a bit on the fence about it."

Can anyone tell me what is WRONG with regulating the internet? Anybody? I mean, why not subject it to the same rules as print, or video, or any other medium? It can't hurt anyone to crack down on illeagal activities. No one but the lawbreakers anyway.

"Can anyone tell me what is WRONG with regulating the internet? Anybody? I mean, why not subject it to the same rules as print, or video, or any other medium? It can't hurt anyone to crack down on illeagal activities. No one but the lawbreakers anyway."

Uhmmmmm...did you read the firstr part of the post... cause I sorta said why.

Can anyone tell me what is WRONG with regulating the internet?

Because the internet does not belong to the US. The US *cannot* entirely regulate the internet, as the current domain name structure has proven.

Can anyone tell me what is WRONG with regulating the internet? Anybody? I mean, why not subject it to the same rules as print, or video, or any other medium?

Given that the other term for the internet is the world wide web...exactly whose "rules [for] print, or video, or any other medium" are you suggesting it be subjected to? The U.S.'s? China's? Russia's? France's? Which nation's notion of what is and isn't acceptable - and, for that matter, which portion of which nation's notion - do you suggest set the standard?

On the other hand, you could argue that this sort of law HAS been in effect for YEARS for video tape and that they are just extending it to the "new" medium of the internet. I'm a bit on the fence about it.

Yes, you could argue that. That is, in the cases in which the web site is also the producer of the material. However, as I noted earlier, applying this same interpretation to video is like requiring not just the production company but also the video store to keep such records on file.

Porn is already regulated, except on the internet. Hardcore porn is strictly regulated most places. Also, disseminating porn to a minor is illegal, yet on the internet, it is easy for anyone to access any kind of porn through the simple expedient of lying. Plus, the added benifit of virtual anonymity means that the internet should be even more strictly regulated. If you go into Borders, they can make you prove you are 18 (or in some places, 21.) Doing that on the internet is nearly impossible.

As Nytewing pointed out, this interpretation isn't so much censorous as impractical. There are thousands of "mirror" sites that post visual links to other sites, promo photos and clips of material that is produced and distributed by other sites, or clips and photos that originated in non-digital media. Very often, these "mirror" sites are operated as a hobby by individuals or small groups. And that doesn't even count the directory sites that archive and link to the mirror sites. None of these people keep open lines of communication with the producers, or each other. The odds of them even being able to obtain records for every single series of images or clips on their servers are impossible. The only way to avoid prosecution would be to shut down completely. And, as Glenn pointed out, even sites that just let people post naked pictures of themselves are being affected.

All of which suggests to me that the true purpose of the law is to do an end run around the First Amendment to remove content they don't like from public consumption.

Furthermore, the interpretation violates an important judicial principle by putting the burden of proof on the defendant. Instead of the state having to prove a crime has been committed, the defendant has to prove one hasn't. I'm not wild about the precedent that sets, no matter what the law is designed to prevent.

Because the internet does not belong to the US. The US *cannot* entirely regulate the internet, as the current domain name structure has proven.

No, but it can regulate what commerce is carried on within the United States and with United States citizens. Telephones connect the US with the rest of the world, but nobody thinks that makes telephone networks immune from governmental regulation.

I think a bunch of people are posting without reading the link. Is making sure that everybody in a porn film or some sort of strange photo shoot are of age a good idea? Yes. Should it be illegal to use those who are under age for such things? Yes. And it already is.

The problem with this law falls under this bit:

"Now, the law is getting stricter. The new enforcement regulations would require webmasters that don't produce material to keep age records for every image that shows or implies sexual activity on their sites. (Sites that simply feature straightforward nudity are exempt.)

"If the original content producer can't be found or went out of business or is unwilling to release information, that causes this content to become criminal overnight," said adult industry attorney Lawrence Walters. "These webmasters are facing felony charges if they continue distributing images they've been distributing for the last five to 10 years."

The maximum penalty is 10 years in prison per violation."

So, what this means is that a site that has an image on it that was lifted from elsewhere, while it may be clear that both members of the image are in their, say, thirties, is in violation of this law because it has no records to show the age of the subjects in the image. Sites owned by a porn company are fine because they, by law, have the records on their performers. Sites that deal in the sales of porn or like materials stand to be harassed by the feds since they don't automatically have those records. If they sell materials from legitimate companies then they can get those records and clear up any problems until the next time. But, since the porn companies have to comply by these laws to begin with they shouldn't have to do this because all the performers were already documented. The only reason to go after sale sites? Harass them.
Sites that make their money just by posting images they lift from elsewhere or sites where users send in images for voting contests or other such silliness face the biggest threat because they can't document the ages of any of the subjects in such images. Again, they can have posted images of obvious thirty year olds but find themselves charged with posting illegal images because they can't show records on or IDs from the subjects in the images.

So what will this law do?

1) The net loses lots of money from its #1 revenue source being harassed and, in some cases, shut down.

2) Legal businesses are penalized for no reason at all. They also get the joy of having to needlessly jump threw more hoops that truly do nothing to stop real illegalities.

3) The illegal child porn industry ticks along as is because they're already breaking the law and they don't care about the new ones. No part of their industry complies to any law anyhow and they can be busted left and right without the new one having been put in place. This law will only go after legal sites for no good reason.

4) The crusaders who've been going after "obscenity" will be happy since this gives them a backdoor law they need to harass and attempt to shut down the types of legal things that they've been after for years. Just because it won't do anything about the crime they want to bang their chest about doesn't really matter because that's not what this law is really about.

5) We get to fight one more round in the "just what is obscenity" game. Some random pictures from a Frat House gangbang with five or six guys and one girl posted on the net does tend to fall under that label. But what about an artful shot of two naked adults posed to replicate something from the classic era of art? What if it's a live model version of The Lovers? Is it obscenity? I would tend to say no. But the people who say yes now have another tool to attack and harass something they don't like with.

And that's abour all I can see this thing doing.

I agree that the law is wrong, but the idea behind it was good. there should be more regulation of the internet. As for the small groups who run mirrior sites, they should be subject to the same rules as a small porn company trying to make it in LA. whose laws should they be subject to? The laws of the country in which they are based. All of the adult websites could have different permutations for each country. For instance, in Japan, showing pubic hair was illegal. So they would airbrush Playboy to remove it. I don't think that a similar protocol is totally out of the question for the web. Or perhaps an international forum setting guidelines. All countries have this issue, so an international guide is a good idea. After all, no one approves of child porn, and an international effort to stamp it out might work. I don't know that this is the most viable idea, but a man can dream, can't he?

Has it occured to X that this thread is only about 6 hours old, and PAD may not have gotten to read it yet? He may be busy, I understand he writes books as well as posts here. Or is X so self important that he feels PAD should be at his beck and call?

"Implies sexual activity?" Oh, that's just loverly. Now every site that's ever posted a picture someone might interpret as sexual has to keep these records.

Hey, I just thought of something. Google Image Search can, potentially, display every pornographic image that existed on the Internet, ever. A search for just the word "sex" turns up 1,780,000 results. Therefore, under this law, the webmasters of Google should be locked up for the next seventeen million years.

I guess we'll need to build us some more prisons.

Initally I also thought this sounded like a good idea, until I read more about it. More detail on this rule change can be seen here:

http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=1&id=6351

Among the rule changes are
* Anyone who displays porn images is not classified as a "producer" of the material. Than's like saying that if the corner newsstand carries Playboy, they are also the publisher of it.
* The rule change takes effect retroactively . So even though sites like gay.com have taken down the pictures, they could still be charged with breaking the law before the act was illegal.
* The rules are overly broad, they could even include online news organizations posting images of Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse.

Yes, age verification can be e-mailed, faxed, etc., but the authorities might want the originals kept on file.

No, but it can regulate what commerce is carried on within the United States and with United States citizens. Telephones connect the US with the rest of the world, but nobody thinks that makes telephone networks immune from governmental regulation.

Yeah, and that line of thought has gone so well for the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, and other groups targetting file sharers.

But the fact remains that this enforcement is apparently there to target sites, not visitors.

So, your line of thought is actually useless when this stuff can easily be hosted overseas.

Mr. Carter, I don't think you quite understand the nature of the medium. It is possible, for instance, to airbrush out the pubic hair in a copy of Playboy sold in Japan, because it is a physical artifact, which must be physically transported into Japan to be sold. However, a Japanese businessman travelling to, say, Hawaii, can tehn purchase a copy of Playboy without the pubic hairs deleted. When he flies home with this illicit item in his luggage, should the Japanese authorities be able to travel to the shop in Honolulu where the item was purchased, and arrest the shopkeeper for peddling obscenity under Japanese law?

When one accesses an image kept on a server outside the United States, the image is not physically transmitted into our borders; it is not subject to customs inspection, nor to legal analysis. In cyberspace, remember, all places are one. If one accesses pictures of, say, a 16-year-old couple engaging in sexual activity that is maintained on a server in Sweden, where it is perfectly legal, should one's ISP be subject to prosecution for allowing you to look at that?

If you first access a server in the US, whose webmaster has been told that the persons depicted are in fact 19 (and thus legal by US law), should the server and its webmaster be prosecuted for linking to an image that they thought, in good faith, was legal? Should the webmaster, whose server is physically located in, say, Fresno, CA, have to fly out to Sweden to verify the age-documentation of the persons in the image? How could he tell a good ID from a fake one? (I don't even know what a Swedish ID looks like...)

Now, it is good to require the originator of the material to document this data. This is already enshrined in law. However, "the Internet" is more of a concept than a thing, and as such is not subject to "regulation" by anyone. The only way to enforce this would be to deny US citizens free access to servers not already examined by the US Government. In what significant way would this differ from, for example, China's recent push to have the words "freedom", "dissent", and "democracy" blocked from all Internet access programs sold there?

Love this bit as well.

"The new regulations raise other issues, too. Some adult performers are afraid their personal information -- including their real names and addresses -- will land in the hands of countless webmasters who now need to keep age records for every image on their sites."

Gee, how do you think you would feel if every company that had any dealings with your employer now had all of your personal information? Ever hear of stalkers and nutjobs? It's not really easy to track someone down just by knowing their name. Search for John Average and you'll get millions of hits. Search for John Average, born 02/07/1978 and you make the list a hell of a lot shorter. Add in more information (such as a Soc Sec #) and you get an even shorter list. This law needlessly places information in the hands of people who may not be the most trustworthy stewards of such personal information. I'm sure you would just love it if it was your information.

Of course it's never actually occured to some people, that PAD hasn't even seen this post yet.

I see where people are coming from, but on a lot of levels it's a regulation that's going to be almost impossible to comply with for pretty much every site.

this website gives a good explanation http://freeinternetpress.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3868

can any business honestly do this?

The rules are designed to shut it down.

Furthermore, the interpretation violates an important judicial principle by putting the burden of proof on the defendant. Instead of the state having to prove a crime has been committed, the defendant has to prove one hasn't. I'm not wild about the precedent that sets, no matter what the law is designed to prevent.

The precedent isn't really that weird. If you think about it, the majority of US adults are already under that obligation-- it's illegal to drive without your license and registration on you, if asked you need to provide proof of insurance in the event of an accident, and if your car doesn't show its inspection or registration stickers, be prepared to be pulled over. Business owners have to keep their business licenses paid up, and usually displayed somewhere in the office. If you run a restaurant, the results of the most recent health inspection must be posted. Commercial regulation-- and even regulation of consumer behavior-- is hardly new.

I do agree with your other point-- this regulation will have the effect of driving a lot of smaller porn companies out of business, and it's hard to believe that the drafters of the regulation didn't see that coming. It's not censorship, exactly, but it does seem to be a little passive-aggressive.

Yeah, and that line of thought has gone so well for the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, and other groups targetting file sharers.

They took over Napster and drove several other peddlers of illegal copies out of business. It should work better with porn-- other nations, by and large, pay less attention to copyright laws than the US, but they're actually harsher on freedom of expression. I think if these regulations put anywhere NEAR as much of a brake on porn as RIAA has put on file sharing, the archconservatives at Justice will be giggling like school girls. (And yes, like many of you, I suspect that at least some people at Justice are perfectly OK with any chilling effect this regulation may have.)

One would think that the legitimate porn producers would welcome such a law. It would prevent other sites from ripping off the original product and passing it off as their own.

Most personals sites already have an approval process in place for photos, making sure they are acceptable (according to their own rules). Yahoo will probably change their profile rules to make all photos in the age restricted areas to be approved first. Seems this isn't such a big deal to me.

"Has it occured to X that this thread is only about 6 hours old, and PAD may not have gotten to read it yet?"
-------------

Great! I'm sure it will be deleted tomorrow, then. I'll check back.

If it's still here ... has it occurred to YOU that I am correct?

First, this reminds me of the one good line, possibly one good moment in the whole series, from the show SKIN. As porn company owner Larry Goldman is firing someone for allowing one child-oriented group appear among hundreds on their server, he says in an even, angry voice, "We don't do anything with children. There's a reason it's called *adult* entertainment."

Second, I read the original article (I recommend everyone else read it too, to see what caused this before reading opinions on it) and there is tremendous room for abusive prosecution here. Supposing I run a website with pornographic images from a company, let's say Wicked Pictures, which verifies the ages of its performers and states this (along with where they keep the records) before every movie. If I post them online, I now need to get proof of the ages of every performer -- heck, "for every image that shows or implies sexual activity on their sites" -- or face prosecution. Do these files need to be available for every actor and actress? For every scene? What is "implied" sexuality? What about movies where the records never existed -- a movie with, say, Vanessa Del Rio whose production date was when she was in her 30s or 40s, but for which no documentation exists?

And here's the imortant question: How does this improve on current child pornography laws? I haven't heard how this proposed legislation would reduce child porn, or how it would improve prosecution against offenders. It sounds like a way to make life harder for, er, legitimate pornographers by forcing them to provide the documentation that had previously been sufficient.

As for morality, I am always amazed that it's more acceptable to watch movies where people get killed than to watch movies where people get laid. There are far, far worse things than seeing consentual adults having sex. (Not so many things better, though!)

"Great! I'm sure it will be deleted tomorrow, then. I'll check back.

If it's still here ... has it occurred to YOU that I am correct?"

I was refering to PAD having not posted. I've read enough of PAD to feel comfortable in saying that regardless if he agrees with this thread or not, he won't delete it. PAD belives in the free exchange of ideas on this board. Now before you twist that statement, and point out he's ignoring you he has not deleted your post or banned you from the site. Were you to conduct your self in a civilized and intellegent manner Pad would argue with you till your little conservative hearts content. Example: Jim from Iowa. He and Pad have argued many a time. Perhaps you should try it. But I doubt you will.

Jeff ;)

Feh. Folks who like this development are basically being lazy. They want other people to do their dirty work for them. And they're ignoring the law of unintended consequences.

1) It's anti-small business. Makes it lots harder for small businesses to grow their business.

2) It's unpermissably vague and allows authorities to prosecute on an arbitrary basis. You folks REALLY think it won't be used to harass sites that are "merely" sleazy?

3) It fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the Internet (gee, that's a big surprise). As other people have said, they're treating hosts of sites as essentially originators and producers. That REALLY doesn't match up with reality; content is generated through a variety of different ways that really don't match up with this law.

4) It essentially tries to impose local morality on a universal arena--it's arrogant and wrong headed. WHy does it bother so many people that the internet is a platform for material that they don't like? People have to be actively seeking this material out...and if you're concerned about your kids, there are simple every day precautions you can take....just like every other potential danger in the world. You don't have to butt your nose into other people's business to protect your kids.

Oh for crying out loud...

Can anyone honestly and, more importantly, intelligently disagree that with his most recent unprovoked, uneducated attack calling PAD a supporter of kiddie porn, X-Ray has officially crossed the line into libel? (look it up if you have doubts)

I'm all for the intelligent free exchange of ideas, but there comes a point when a guest has abused his host's hospitality too much and the host has every right (and responsibility to his other guests, for that matter) to show him the door.

-Rex Hondo-

This post has been started twice before and the computer has crashed before I could post. Let's see if the third time's the charm.

In no particular order:

* The post was indeed from me, not Peter. I posted it here because of the widespread interest many folks here have in censorship related materials. Any flak should be sent my way, not his.

* The Free Speech Coalition announced today a stipulation between the parties in Free Speech Coalition et al v. Alberto Gonzales, under which the U.S. Department of Justice agrees that the regulations relating to the federal record-keeping and labeling law, 18 U.S.C. Section 2257, will not be enforced against plaintiffs and all FSC members until September 7, 2005. The U.S. District Court in Denver will hold a preliminary injunction hearing on August 8, 2005, after which the judge will determine whether to issue a further injunction.

Although the DoJ will not conduct any inspections or pursue any claims with regard to the plaintiffs and their members, it reserves the right to inspect and prosecute anyone who is not a plaintiff or FSC member. And there are thousands of sites that aren't.

* Earlier today, gay.com, a community site, removed all photos tagged as adult from personal profiles. They were prepared to remove all cartoons, illustrations, and the like as well.

* In addition, under the law, if you wanted to post any adult photos of yourself, you would have to do so under a real name-- no AOL ID only, or any other online psuedonym such as "Bulldog". Your real name. And age. And home address.

* As was pointed out upthread, for the entire time this law has been on the books, the understanding of the word "producer" has been clearly understood to mean the entity that actually creates the pornographic media. In expanding the scope of enforcement of 18 USC 2257 to the Internet, the Justice Department has decided that just about everyone with potentially pornographic material online is a producer of pornography and must keep proof of age on file. Further, the Justice Department intends to make its change in rules retroactive to a time before the change was made.

* The best summation of the problem I've seen is at Free Internet Press, and I'm going to quote heavily:

For the above photograph, we require the following information:

The full legal name of the model:
John Stickfigure
Jane Stickfigure

All other names, (maiden/married/stage name, aliases):
John S
John The Stick
Jane
JaneS
Jane Sticky
Jane Markwitchz

Copy of the depiction, printed on the paper record.

Copy of every associated URL the image is displayed on, and the URL of the image every place it appears. Even on our site here, that's a problem. Any given page is dynamically shown not only in 4 different places on this site, but through every RSS newsreader, and aggregation sites such as Google News and Yahoo News.

We must also maintain indexes which find the record alphabetically, numerically, by the performer's last name (followed by first), aliases, stage names, title, and identifying marks.

If someone else should reuse this image on their site, but linking it from our server, we must also append our records then. If http://my-anal-retentative-government-agency.gov put our picture on their site, linked from our servers, we must update our records accordingly.

If the indexing and record keeping weren't enough, we have rules for record maintaince and retention and inspection.

The record must be maintained at my place of business. I cannot have a 3rd party company maintain my records for me. I must keep these records segregated from any other records. I must keep the records intact for 7 years from creation or amendment, and finally even if my organization should fail, I'm required to keep these records on file for 5 years, which makes the following interesting.

My location must be available for inspection from 8am to 6pm, 365 days a year. I understand this has been amended to only be 20 hours per week.

While "inspecting records", the agents may seize any evidence of any felony while conducting an inspection. Basically, they're opening up a door for warrentless entry into any adult business (adult video store, book store, or Internet business)

Ahhh, and the disclosure statement. Several paragraphs in 11 point type, on the front page of the site, saying the title of the work, date of production, publication, duplication, reproduction, or reissuance. the street address where the records are kept, and the name, title, and business address of the custodian of records.

So, our little photograph above not only has created a few pages of paperwork in a segregated part of our offices. We now also have a new part time employee (20 hours per week), who's only job is to sit over those records, waiting for the Attorney General or a delegate thereof to knock on the door and say "Show Me Your Papers" .

* The new rules are so overborad, they could include online news organizations posting images of Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, or of Jeff Gannon's attempts to drum up some extra business. Hmm-- maybe that's the point.

* Finally, these issues have already been litigated. I was a plaintiff in ACLU v. Reno, which overturned the Communications Decency Act in 1996 and went all the way to the Supreme Court, as well as in ALA v. Pataki and People For The American Way v. Chapman, where I was a co-plaintiff with the CBLDF and Harlan Ellison. More to the point, this specific issue was dealt with in in Sundance Associates, Inc. v. Reno, 139 F.3d 804, 808 (10th Cir 1998), which held that entities which have no role in the "hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation" of the models or performers, are exempt from the record-keeping requirements of 18 USC 2257.

I'm probably missing some subtlety here, but personally? I don't see this as censorship.

I mean, I get the notion that the concept of "producers" is now being expanded to websites that didn't necessarily produce, but instead only display, porn for sale. But the law's not curtailing the actual production of it,which WOULD be censorship. It's basically saying that if you're gonna sell this stuff, you better have all your ducks in a row. Is that a potential hardship? I suppose. But no one is forcing anyone to profiteer off photos of people having sex. Sorry, Fred, but you knew the job was dangerous when you took it. If you don't want to worry about having your ducks in a row, stay out of the pond.

I assume that if people still want to buy internet porn, they can go to the sites of the producers and get it straight from the source. If that's not the case, then certainly the producers can set up distribution deals with specific websites as the "official" outlets and provide them with the required paperwork, right?

Wanting to make sure that photos depicting kidporn aren't being distributed, and coming down on those who do...I just don't have a problem with that.

PAD

"Can anyone honestly and, more importantly, intelligently disagree that with his most recent unprovoked, uneducated attack calling PAD a supporter of kiddie porn, X-Ray has officially crossed the line into libel?"

Nah. See, for something to be libel, in addition to being patently false, it also has to hold the subject up to public contempt or ridicule and damage his reputation.

In this case, the source of the comments is held in such contempt by this little "community" that nothing he says can damage or defame me because no one takes what he says about me seriously.

PAD

As to the idea of you posting something that would get PAD in trouble, unless you clear it with him beforehand, I think he's safe. You can't be punished for something you didn't know you did.

But that's exactly what this new law says. If it's on PAD's website, even if someone else posted it, PAD is considered a "producer" of the material and has to have the age records. If he doesn't, then he gets 10 years in prison.

I read a "public" blog where all members can post articles and links that we find interesting on the 'net, and this does include porn, so they have a large post about it here that explains how broadly the law is written and is open to abuse.

And last but not least, Child Porn is an abomination and Child Pornographers should be locked in small boxes with hungry weasles. Or an internet troll. I can't believe that adults who enjoy watching consenting adults have to state that child porn is bad.

PAD writes: I'm probably missing some subtlety here, but personally? I don't see this as censorship. I mean, I get the notion that the concept of "producers" is now being expanded to websites that didn't necessarily produce, but instead only display, porn for sale.

Who said anything about sale? There are lots of people who are posting photos of themselves for free online, who I'm quite sure don't want their personal information along with it. The law affects them as well. Bye-bye, amatuer porn, nudists, and explicit personal ads.

But let's continue with the profit sites for a second... under the new interpretation, all websites must maintain their own sets of records for any explicit content they publish-- perhaps even including explicit banner ads supplied by other companies or thumbnail images of explicit video jackets. Taken to a real world example, consider that if we did this with print, Diamond would have to include all that information with shipping lists.

Let's even consider some of the other not quite porn stuff, shall we? HBO and Showtime could be affected because of shows like "Real Sex" and "Family Business." And what about that explicit oral sex scene between Vincent Gallo and Chloe Sevigny in "The Brown Bunny?" This is a movie that got a three-star review from Roger Ebert. It's not a porn film, but it will have to comply. And so would all the web sites that reported on the controversial billboard that shows Sevigny performing oral sex on Gallo.

Which brings us to the old reliable-- just what does "sexually explicit" mean? Is it like the word "indecent" in the CDA, which got it laughed out of the courts for vagueness? Would the photo of YOU in "Faces Of Fantasy" be considered sexually explicit? And if so, would you feel comfortable having your name, address, and every pen name you've ever written under on file for anybody to get their hands on-- like, say, readers of this weblog?

I stand corrected. I bow to the expertise of the man who writes for a living and momentarily hang my head in chagrin as I re-read the definition as I invited others to do. Previous statements made in this thread are not libelous as of this time, merely potentially libelous.

-Rex Hondo-

"There are lots of people who are posting photos of themselves for free online, who I'm quite sure don't want their personal information along with it. The law affects them as well. Bye-bye, amatuer porn, nudists, and explicit personal ads."

Glenn, what you're saying makes no sense. If it's photos of people THEMSELVES, then aren't they going to KNOW and be able to PROVE how old they themselves are? As for nudity, the link you provided states:

"Sites that simply feature straightforward nudity are exempt."

Look, I like to think I'm as alert to potential abuse of laws as the next First Amendment absolutist. Certainly, for instance, the laws involving nudity the CBLDF is currently fighting in Georgia are so badly written that the act of mailing a Valentines Day card with a naked cherub on it could get you arrested. But in this case, the examples you yourself are presenting don't hold up. Your OWN LINK states that nudists can post pictures of themselves. And what's an "explicit personal ad?" If it's just words, it doesn't matter how explicit it is, it's still not images.

It's not the definition of the material itself that's at issue here. The definition of "sexually explicit" material is the exact same that it's been for the past fifteen years, and your contention that it's somehow being expanded is not remotely supported by the article you linked to (and if it's not reliable or does a half-assed job of presenting the story, you bloody well shouldn't have linked to it.) The main expansion seems to involve, and I quote:

"The countless porn sites that steal content from others will be in jeopardy as well"

To which I say, "Awwwww. My heart bleeds." If they want to avoid trouble, then to paraphrase Jim Carrey, "STOP STEALING PORN, ASSHOLE."

And in the "real world," Diamond doesn't distribute porn, so that doesn't track either.

I'm sorry, Glenn, but I don't think you remotely made your case on this, and to be candid, I wish you hadn't posted the damned thing here in the first place because it's my blog, not yours. I'm leaving it up because I encourage debate and you work your ass off around here (and people, you know, hitting the tip jar on occasion to cover costs without giving me crap about it wouldn't kill you, y'know. Mark Evanier mentions it on his board, he gets a few grand. I bring it up, I get hassled while clearing maybe ten bucks, half of which came from my daughter). But next time, check with me in advance, would you, please? At the very least, put THIS IS FROM GLENN in big quivering capital letters.

PAD

"Let's even consider some of the other not quite porn stuff, shall we? HBO and Showtime could be affected because of shows like "Real Sex" and "Family Business." And what about that explicit oral sex scene between Vincent Gallo and Chloe Sevigny in "The Brown Bunny?""

You don't think that if asked, lawyers for both Time/Warner and Viacom could produce, within an hour, proof of age for anyone appearing nude and/or in a sexually explicit manner on their networks? Ditto for any film producer with half a brain?

"And in the "real world," Diamond doesn't distribute porn, so that doesn't track either."

Actually, they do. You can order Playboy, Penthouse, and other similar magazines from Diamond. I even know a retailer who was given a rack display with these magazines from Diamond. And they sell adult comics (for example, the Eros books from Fantagraphics).

It's a form of censorship when even private or semi-private websites that aren't seeling the photos are required to main onerous records on users through-out not just the US but the entire world.

Big Brother is one step closer...

Add this and the Supreme Court's "Eminent Domain extends to private commercial ventures" ruling-stupidity and there's even more reasson to hate what America has become... America was a good experiment that made it to about 200 years before it forgot why it was founded and became just another dictatorship...

I am wondering how it would affect a place that host for free. A good example would be Heromorph http://www.heromorph.com a place that as far as I can see cost money and does not make any money. It is a fan intrest site that takes various photos and pictures and maked them into adult and non-adult pictures.

"Hi Miss Sarah Michelle Geller, we need your birthdate and address because we have a picture of you half in a Supergirl uniform showing your breast on a web site that we got the original from a newsgroup, and it may be you in the original, an actress that looks like you, or a photomorphed picture."

While some stuff could be understandable could just be used to force a certain type of morality.

This is regulation, not censorship. Does it go too far? Maybe. I think it gets the government one step closer to full regulaton of cable signals, which isn't something I want to see.

But overall? Is this really such a hardship? There's a real easy solution to this...have some code writer develop a file tag to each image that would fall under this regulation, and attach to the .jpg or whatever something that fulfills the legal requirements here...something like a statement that affirms that all performers are of age, or some traceable affadavit-like document that affirms the same.

Of course, only those that don't have permission to use an image are really hurt by this. If some site is selling files of stuff they own, they should already have this stuff on file. Only if they've stolen the image do they need to worry. And it's not a big deal for site that host images to get the user to verify their age before posting. All they have to do is keep the record...I don't know what obligation they are under to make sure the statement is true, but so long as they have the verification from the poster, the site host should be covered.

I don't see it as onerous...if other vendors of images of sexual activity have to do this, why allow one sector of that market to not have to do so?

Love this law. LOVE it. 10 points for strategy if nothing else.

Meanwhile, the government can seize your home to build a strip mall. BAD DOG! Man, that had me so angry this morning until I read this thread (I'm still mad about it, but this is nicely distracting). :)

I think if these regulations put anywhere NEAR as much of a brake on porn as RIAA has put on file sharing, the archconservatives at Justice will be giggling like school girls.

The thing is, David, is that the RIAA has NOT put a break on file sharing - bittorrent (for all you can get through that method of file sharing) now accounts for something like 30% of all internet activity.

If anything, the RIAA has only pissed off consumers more. :)

Wanting to make sure that photos depicting kidporn aren't being distributed, and coming down on those who do...I just don't have a problem with that.

The thing is, as others have said, I don't see this affecting kiddie porn in the least.

That may be the intent, but, well, those guys are already breaking every law on the books, so what does it matter to them?

And I don't think the government really cares too much if one porn site is stealing from another. They might care if these guys weren't paying their taxes, but that's another issue entirely.

So, no, I don't see this as censorship either. But I do see it as a serious attempt at legislating morality and trying to arrest people for said morality.

Now, to go back to some of the examples people have used - linking sites, etc. Will the Feds also be holding ISP's responsible while they're at it with newsgroups, since many places cache that stuff? Will everybody at Google be jailed for linking to every site in existance? What about web archives sites?

I guess we better start building a few thousand more jails to hold all these people.

"So, no, I don't see this as censorship either. But I do see it as a serious attempt at legislating morality and trying to arrest people for said morality."

Do you mean the original law and regulation, or just this latest attempt to expand it? Because this is only new because it's being applied to a source that, until fall 2005, has not had to comply with this requirement. But adult movie producers, and magazines that depict sexual activity already have to comply.

So, are you saying that you feel that this requirement should be abolished overall, or that the internet should be exempt from the requirement?

Child porn is already illegal...and as we see every few weeks, the Justice department has an active branch that regularly makes arrests of those that view and spread child porn. I don't see this requirement as changing that...that that are already engaged in viewing illegal activity are not going to be deterred by an additional 10-year sentence. Likewise those that produce it.

However, in a way, I see this regulation as a legitimatazion of the adult entertainment industry. It ensure that companies don't hire another Traci Lords, thinking they can evade the requirement to hire only adult actors because the are only going to distribute material over the internet. But, the certainly can wait for Ms. Lords to turn 18, get it on file, and film away.

It's got some parallels with the thinking behind the NBA imposing a draft age requirement of 19.

Do you mean the original law and regulation, or just this latest attempt to expand it?

The attempt to expand it.

Others have already given great examples as to how this would related to printed material, yet that doesn't apply. So why should it for the internet?

However, in a way, I see this regulation as a legitimatazion of the adult entertainment industry.

Oh, come on, you think the government wants the adult entertainment industry to be considered legit? :)

ICANN just approved the .xxx domain name, but it will likely remain a wasteland because of the inherited view of what "xxx" means.

Sorry, PAD, I should have known better. I agree with everything you said, including that it is a very good idea to make sure that people don`t overlook that a new blog is from Glenn and not from you.

I am going to take broad strokes I am not in most of your alls league when it comes to wordsmithing. Bush and large group of Republicans that seem to be in charge until 2008 have no problem using fear to advance every single one of there "pet" projects. Putting a base near our major oil supplier. Changing Roe vs wade anyway they can. Patriot act, changing judges now freedom of expression.
Use the frog analogy. You can sit a frog in cold water and slowly turn the heat up until it boils to death.
I for one will not sit in the boiling water. Come 2008 Hilary better run. We need a stronger Democratic party maybe thats what this is creating I dont know. I do know that I will not forget the fear tacticts being used to strip this country of basic freedoms.

"Oh, come on, you think the government wants the adult entertainment industry to be considered legit? :)"

No, and that's what's funny to me about this. I certainly agree that most behind this change in interpretation probably think this is a great way to legislate morality, and that they're one step closer to stamping out porn. Yet, by imposing such regulations, they are legitimatizing the industry...practically handing out adult entertainment licenses. Whether it already applies to magazines, or just film producers, it applies to some sector of the industry, and that industry, from all accounts I've heard, is doing quite well for itself.

As an attempt to legislate morality, this fails, because all it does is provide additional protections for those businesses that post their own material, and puts in jeopardy those that steal from other sources.

By this goofy laws logic a guy who owns a 7-Eleven would have to get age verification from Playboy and Penthouse every month or face hard time.

//Bush and large group of Republicans that seem to be in charge until 2008//

Don't forget...JEB for President in 2008.

We may be in this mess (although I do have a somewhat higher opinion of Jeb than Dubbya) through 2012.

But then, Jupiter blowing up and the loss of nighttime in 2010 ought to cleverly distract us from some of the mess.

But then, Jupiter blowing up and the loss of nighttime in 2010 ought to cleverly distract us from some of the mess.

why does/will Jupiter hate America so much??

/flippancy off

----------------------

Come 2008 Hilary better run.

Only if Wes Clark doesn't run. In 2004 he was the only candidate (from any party) with any plans to get things done.

I'd echo those who are saying that this law will be a hardship mainly for the sites that steal content outright, as even the ones who only license the material and post it maintain some kind of legitimate business that should absorb these new requirements. As for the performers' private information, many industry performers already submit that information every month in certain areas to meet health code requirements related to STD testing. Those same big names in the industry will only work with others who maintain their health clearances in order to maintain their own credibility as someone who's clean to work with. Further, the provider of content must maintain records for inspection, but that doesn't mean those records must be made public for anyone to see; the information won't have to be attached to the product. That's a method to make passing the records easier, but it's not a requirement in this law. I agree that this law will actually go to great lengths to legitimize the industry, as both performers and producers will have to consider not only how they do business, but who they trust with these kinds of records. You're the hot new porn star, with thousands of slavering fanboys after you; are you going to let just any Sleazy P. Martini website host your material? Hell, if anything, this might end up putting more money in the pockets of those who actually produce this stuff, as they might move to more of a direct web provision business model or charge a premium for guaranteed legitimate work.

Sorry; in the above post, I meant to say:

You're the hot new porn star, with thousands of slavering fanboys after you; are you going to let just any Sleazy P. Martini website access your private records?

as they might move to more of a direct web provision business model or charge a premium for guaranteed legitimate work.

I would think most do already.

It just doesn't stop people from taking copies of any of it once they have an account.

Age verification (mostly via credit cards) is already a big part of the porn-site business model - a great majority of legit sites require it to get access to much of anything.

Sure, kids will find ways around this stuff. But then, kids still get their hands on the latest issues of Playboy, so no system is fool-proof.

I'd also think most sites, whether they provide proof or not, would be avoiding underage performers (for the laws of their host country) just so they won't get nabbed in the ever-increasing number of world-wide raids against the stuff.

So, to a degree, these guys are already policing themselves based on the laws on the books.

I suppose what should really catch the notice of everybody is the notes that this will apply retroactively. Huh?

Since when is that legal?

I maintain a small community website with a forum that allows HTML. Which means individuals can include images in their posts. I've deleted porn before, but I'm curious how long it has to be up before I'm prosecutable for allowing the porn to be on my site. 1 day, 1 hour, 1 second? I'm one person, and unable to monitor it that often. I might have to take the forum down. This isn't a porn site I'm running, it's just a community site that has an open forum.

As someone mentioned above in the thread, Google Images would be in big trouble if the government decided to prosecute. They have thumbnails of many of these images on their server. I guarantee you they don't have the records. If this law passes, and is enforced, Google Images might have to shut down.

Actually, the retroactive part doesn't sit right with me, either, but I assume if it's unconstitutional, that part alone would get the whole thing thrown out in court.

As for the age-verification thing, am I confused about what we're talking about here? The law is focused on verifying the age of the performers and models in the material, not in verifying the age of those who are viewing said material.

There's a big difference between 7-11 selling Jugs, and someone posting an unidentified video clip on their web site: Jugs has a clearly identified publisher, and it's an easy matter to call up that publisher and ask them to provide their records indicating that their performers are of age.

With that unidentified video clip, you have no easy way to do so. If it's a licensed clip, the site host should have some way to trace to the owner of the clip, although it sounds like under this approach that the host will want some form of verification from the clip owner.

As to your own personal web site...if you're monitoring it to keep porn (not nudity, but depictions of sex) off your site, I'd say you've got a valid defense.

Isn't it "Juggs"? With 2 G's? I'd check but I'm at work and they tend to frown upon me checking websites with nudity. :-)

With that unidentified video clip, you have no easy way to do so.

Which is why this whole thing is impractical.

Many websites don't even give accurate information on their whoip lookups - I don't for my site, because I don't think every Jim, Joe, and spammer should have access to my home address and phone number.

This whole thing reeks of the impossible, due to the nature of the internet as a whole.

"This whole thing reeks of the impossible, due to the nature of the internet as a whole."

This is where I'm at a loss...why is it impossible? Because it's a hassle to provide a performer age verification in addition to an explicit video clip? It seems pretty simple to me: video producer gets age verification from all performers and keeps record of such. Producer posts image to website, and every time he licenses off the video clip, he includes a copy of the verification, so the licensee can keep the record. DOJ sees clip, asks for verification, web host produces the copy of the verification from his records.

You don't need the M I team to accomplish this. UNLESS, you've stolen the image, and don't have the verification to produce when DOJ comes calling.

There's a big difference between 7-11 selling Jugs, and someone posting an unidentified video clip on their web site: Jugs has a clearly identified publisher, and it's an easy matter to call up that publisher and ask them to provide their records indicating that their performers are of age.

But there's the problem. Under this new law, that store clerk has to have those records, on hand, for every issue on his stands now. He also has to get them for every issue in the past few months because of the law being retroactive.

"ICANN just approved the .xxx domain name, but it will likely remain a wasteland because of the inherited view of what "xxx" means."

Actually, lots of people WANT a xxx rating because of the inherited views. When it first came out, it had a stigma to it, and then the Porn industry started using it as a cheap form of advertising. And couldn't we simply require that any website carrying porn register under that? And, I am still infavor of an international regulation of the internet. A set of guidlines, perhaps similar to that of the laws of the seas? In the laws governing international waters, courts will cite rulings from other countries. A similar law should apply to the internet. Most likely won't happen, but I am an idealist.

Sneezy, I don't think the regulation would require that. I saw someone mention that the regulation doesn't apply to magazines anyway, but just for the moment assume it does: it doesn't seem like 7-11 can be called a producer of explicit images just because it sells Juggs (I'll take BBayliss' word on this one...it's been over 10 years since my days working at a college booze outlet). In that case, 7-11 is clearly not a producer, but a vendor, and the producer is cleary and easily identified.

Why this would apply to website is because the identity of the procuder is not as clear. Unless the site is going to post the producer/studio the clip came from, it's reasonable to assme that the site may be the producer. And if the site is not going to make a clear distinction between just being a vendor, and actually being a producer, it seems fine to me to require the site to carry the verification. Or at least identify the producer.

What would be interesting is if the site just kept record of the producer of the clip, so that when DOJ calls, they can just pass the buck.

I'm about to have a rare disagreement with PAD.

PAD, I'm not sure whether you're fully grasping the nature of Internet forums, bulletin boards, and the like. On many forums, users can post their own images. This law would mean that the owner of a site would be required to have documentation on anyone that appears in a photo that anyone that comes across the site posts. Put this in real world terms: you're a college and there's a public bulletin board on campus. Anyone can walk up an tack anything up on the board at anytime. Under this law, the college is responsible for anything tacked to this board, even though the college as an institution did not place it there. Someone puts a pornographic picture up anonymously and the college can be prosecuted for not having the personal records of the individual(s) in the picture.

I think the original intent of this law was admirable but it shows a fundamental lack of understanding about how the Web works. It's practical application threatens any site that uses images of any kind -- which is, you know, pretty much every site on the Web -- and especially threatens hosts of online forums, search engines, and the like. The only way to 100% ensure you can't be found in violation is to have the complete information for every image that appears on your site -- even if you didn't put it there yourself -- or to go to a completely image-less design.

Moreover, it makes even responsible site owners who follow the law to the letter responsible for people who steal images and bandwidth by posting them on other sites without permission. As a Webmaster, I can tell you: there's no way in heck you're going to know about or catch everyone that does this. A lot of people could potentially be prosecuted for something they have absolutely no control over.

Good intent, bad legislation. It's impractical, and I would wager it's also unconstitutional.

I moderate an online forum for my employer (a daily newspaper) and I will have to bring this to their attention as it could have a serious effect on our business -- we may have to consider eliminating the forum entirely if this law stands.

"feature photographs or videos of sexual activity to keep records confirming that performers are of legal age."

Where does anyone get out of that that all images will require age verification? This doesn't apply the neat sig you have, featuring a picture of that time you got your foot stuck in a fence. It doesn't even apply to images of nudity, gore, or violence. It only applies to those images depicting sexual acts...and most producers of such images are already required to keep age verification on record. The justification is because the government has an interest in protecting children from performing in porn. There's very little chance that this is going to expand into everyone's web page they host.

Using the college bulletin board analogy...if someone posts a picture of a couple having sex on that board, the first administrator or faculty member that walks by is going to take it down...just as many site hosters, I'm sure, take down content that they find to be offensive.

Bobb: It applies to anything "they" consider "adult." As the record of the last few years clearly shows, that's widely open to interpretation.

Quoting PAD:

It's not the definition of the material itself that's at issue here. The definition of "sexually explicit" material is the exact same that it's been for the past fifteen years, and your contention that it's somehow being expanded is not remotely supported by the article (Glenn) linked to (and if it's not reliable or does a half-assed job of presenting the story, you bloody well shouldn't have linked to it.) The main expansion seems to involve, and I quote: "The countless porn sites that steal content from others will be in jeopardy as well"

Legitimate producers and providers will weather this; the argument that "they're already doing it so the law's unnecessary" to me says "Great, it won't actually be that big of a burden because they have the mechanisms in place already. There might be some costs for standardization, but otherwise, those that are already doing the right thing will be fine."

Where does anyone get out of that that all images will require age verification?

Past history.

Given that the film CARNAL KNOWLEDGE (which wasn't that objectionable of a movie even when it came out) and that the play SEXUAL PERVERSITY IN CHICAGO just for its title were hassled by authorities should give anyone pause to think.

"The new enforcement regulations would require webmasters that don't produce material to keep age records for every image that shows or implies sexual activity on their sites. (Sites that simply feature straightforward nudity are exempt.)"

If the language from the article accurately conveys the language of the regulation, it's not "adult" material that is covered. It's a very specific kind of image being addressed.

There's nothing in the application of this regulation that applies to the content of the material. You want to shoot a video of explicit sex and post it on the web? No one's stopping you. Just keep a record that shows that the performers are all of proper age.

This is where I'm at a loss...why is it impossible?

And this is where I go to back to the point about the internet belonging to the world, not just the US.

A site wants to get around this stuff? They host overseas. Nothing will really change in the long run, in terms of the feds cracking down on the sites themselves.

Actually, lots of people WANT a xxx rating because of the inherited views.

People may want it, but not the industry itself.

Either way, using the .xxx domain will be voluntary.

And then what truly belongs under .xxx? Hard core porn? Sexual activities? Does Playboy belong there? Informational sites?

These are already problems that net filtering programs have to deal with, and they've not solved it.

It's a very specific kind of image being addressed.

But it's being addressed in a very bad way.

Let's say, for example, that X-Ray comes along and posts a link to a hard core pic as a way of getting PAD in trouble with the law. Sure, the people involved are adults and consenting, but it's a sexual activity.

So, it doesn't get pulled for a couple of hours because Glenn & PAD are in bed.

Do the feds come knocking on PAD's door in the morning looking to arrest him for the pic because PAD obviously wouldn't have the appropriate background information on those in the pic?

Because that is what is at stake for any individual site or forum, whether it be a search engine, a blog, or a message board.

Another couple questions to be raised:

* If your company is in the U.S., & you use a foreign server, or if you're in a foreign country but use a U.S. server, are you under U.S. jurisdictio in either or both cases?

* If you own the site in question but have the material on someone else's server (such as with a hosting service), do both parties have to have the documentation, or just the site owner?

"'This is where I'm at a loss...why is it impossible?'

And this is where I go to back to the point about the internet belonging to the world, not just the US."

This doesn't make it impossible. This just means that there will be those that violate it that are beyond the jurisdiction of the DOJ. Realistically speaking it's "impossible" to catch and fine each and every person that speeds. That doesn't mean that we just throw away all speed restrictions.

So someone posts an image (PAD's website appear to not allow posters to post images) that would be required. And Glenn doesn't catch it...BUT, they make it a regular practice to remove such images...IF DOJ manages to see the image before it gets removed, and IF the concact PAD, he simply tells them the truth...posted by a user, routinly removed by the site host, end of story. No DOJ prosecutor is going to file a case under those facts, because they'd likely be tossed from court.

Besides which, PAD could always provide the URL ID of the poster to the DOJ, and they could go after that person.

Let's say that Craig J. Ries is a murderer, and is planning to murder someone right now. Since he isn't, that would be slander. Craig would be outraged! Yet Craig feels no problem slandering ME:

"Let's say, for example, that X-Ray comes along and posts a link to a hard core pic as a way of getting PAD in trouble with the law. Sure, the people involved are adults and consenting, but it's a sexual activity."

I disagree with Craig, so he feels free to slander me.

Typical liberal.

Classic.

Also funny.

"So, it doesn't get pulled for a couple of hours because Glenn & PAD are in bed."

Well they better not take pictures and post them on the web... Does Peter's wife know about this?

Interesting hypothetical:

What happens if a newspaper publishes a column which contains a libel - they're responsible, right?

What happens if someone posts a libelous comment on PAD's blog...or any blog...and it isn't removed. Can PAD...or any blogger...be held responsible?

I think the answer is yes.

I'm also curious, half in jest, half not...

"Public Figure" is often defined as within a specific community. So someone who generally is unknown to the rest of the world still has to prove malicious intent if they are libeled/slandered within a specific community.

X-Ray has made himself/herself a public figure in PADs blog community, through use of sarcasm, and ridicule. He/she might have to prove malicious intent.

(X-ray, I apologize if you have made your gender clear in an earlier post, but I don't recall, and wouldn't want to assume.)

Let's say that Craig J. Ries is a murderer, and is planning to murder someone right now.

Well, there ARE plenty of places to hide the body.

But, let's face it - you just aren't worth the effort.

IF DOJ manages to see the image before it gets removed, and IF the concact PAD, he simply tells them the truth

What does the truth matter? PAD broke the law whether he intended to or not.

Right now, tons of people are breaking the law whether they're aware of it or not, and there's nothing stopping the DOJ from arresting anybody they want.

I'm sure the DOJ will just tell him that he should never have allowed images in the first place, blogs are evil (except those Republican-run ones), the internet should be controlled by the government etc.

What happens if someone posts a libelous comment on PAD's blog...or any blog...and it isn't removed. Can PAD...or any blogger...be held responsible?

Depends if they have deep pockets or not.

X-Ray posts that PAD supports child porn because he allows a post about the recently updated 2257 law on his blog.

PAD posts that he actually does not have a problem with the updated 2257 law.

X-Ray does not retract his ridiculous slight toward PAD.

Classic.

Also typical.

"What does the truth matter? PAD broke the law whether he intended to or not.

Right now, tons of people are breaking the law whether they're aware of it or not, and there's nothing stopping the DOJ from arresting anybody they want."

Intent goes a long way in a criminal case. The regulation applies to producers of an image. If a website does not make a practice to post or allow the posting of explicit images, they aren't a producer of such images. I'll grant that DOJ may try to procecute some sites that they find such images on, but I don't think those cases will get very far.

I'll grant that DOJ may try to procecute some sites that they find such images on, but I don't think those cases will get very far.

Well, right now, anything is possible, unfortunately.

Posted by Bobb at June 24, 2005 11:32 AM

"This whole thing reeks of the impossible, due to the nature of the internet as a whole."

This is where I'm at a loss...why is it impossible? Because it's a hassle to provide a performer age verification in addition to an explicit video clip? It seems pretty simple to me: video producer gets age verification from all performers and keeps record of such. Producer posts image to website, and every time he licenses off the video clip, he includes a copy of the verification, so the licensee can keep the record. DOJ sees clip, asks for verification, web host produces the copy of the verification from his records.

You don't need the M I team to accomplish this. UNLESS, you've stolen the image, and don't have the verification to produce when DOJ comes calling.

You -- and most of the people posting here -- are missing the point.

No, commercial producers of the stuff will have to work somewhat harder, perhaps unfairly, but the immortal words of Super Chicken apply here.

However, look at, as mentioned, Google, whose image search servers contain thumbnails of probably literally millions of images that they picked up by spidering the web, many of which may well be -- hell, ARE -- "pornographic". The operators of Google should be liable for 10^7 years in prison for offering a search service?

However, the real scary part is Yahoo (and similar sites), which allows people to post pictures of themselves -- or others -- in its "Adult" areas. Every one of those pictures -- under this ruling -- would subject Yahoo brass to ten years in the slammer. Yahoo's policy till now has been "if anyone objects, we'll check it out and take it down if it's in violation of the law or our own TOS." Now, if this goes through, it's going to have to be "Document it up front".

And each image will have to be documented individually -- in a nightmarish bureaucratic process detailed in an earlier post, that puts me in mind of the statement that, if you take into account the paperwork required for every individual part (that is, not simply allow, say, one set of the specs for rivets, but require one for each rivet) a C5 Galaxy, the world's largest cargo plane, couldn't lift thepaperwork required to build one.

Mike raises some very interesting points. As far as search engines go, I'd say that a search engine doesn't provide a host for an image. It creates a page that is specific and viewable only by that individual user, and even if it provides thumbnails of images on the pages it has pulled up, the host of those images is still the original site, not Google. The actual technological working of that may prove me wrong, but at least I think the theory is sound.

As for Yahoo's adult section: this may well be a burdensome result of the new application. I think there are ways around it...maybe make a distinction between images posted by the users of a site (this would protect the fictional PAD from those naughty posts by us, his BLOG community) and those posted by the owners of a site. After all, this is just a policy statement about a pre-existing law/regulation. It can change as soon as DOJ starts getting some feedback.

From Michael Pulman: All of which suggests to me that the true purpose of the law is to do an end run around the First Amendment to remove content they don't like from public consumption.

Me: Exactly! Know what the first thing John Ashcroft did when he got into office was? Anybody?Anybody? Bueller? It wasn't looking for terrorists in our midsts! It was to start going after porn! Not even kitty porn! Just regular garden variety porn.

This isn't about protecting kids, that's the selling point. That's the "WMD" of the porn argument. What this is about is finding gays who post to gay.com or straights who like to show their naughty bits and bring 'em in.

Nothing...NOTHING ticks me off more than censorship and this is it folks!

BTW, can someone define porn for me? Just askin'....

Michael

Michael Norton posted: BTW, can someone define porn for me? Just askin'....

The definition of porn:

If I like it, it's erotic.
If you like it, it's porn.

(That's a universal "I" and "we," folks, not specifically me and Michael Norton.)

"Not even kitty porn!"

Did anyone else have a really strange mental image after reading that, or am I just messed up?

Let's see if this actually posts this time:

Lunchtime blogging again.

Mr Ries wrote, Right now, tons of people are breaking the law whether they're aware of it or not, and there's nothing stopping the DOJ from arresting anybody they want.

Yeah there is. My Traci Lords example earlier wasn't at random: there was a seminal (note the spelling and get your mind out of the gutter) distribution of kiddie porn case called United States v. X-Citement Video, 513 U.S. 64 (1994). Under that and a string of prior rulings, there is a presumption that, absent the specific intent of Congress to create a strict liability offense, some form of intent is necessary to convict someone of a Federal felony. In other words, Justice cannot create criminal liability for an unknowing web site host.

"By this goofy laws logic a guy who owns a 7-Eleven would have to get age verification from Playboy and Penthouse every month or face hard time."

No..by this law..they'd need age verification for every picture in every Playboy and Penthouse every month. In a seperate storage space, that is available to the AG at any moment, for them to search that and every where else connected for anything.

I was really hoping Mr. Bjorlin would post here...I may be a lawyer trained, but he's got more case-law knowledge than me by far. I just go from stuff I learned at law school and make up the rest.

Ok, not always...sometimes I post stuff I see on the web. Which isn't always better than just faking it....

Ignore the stuff about site's that steal pictures and post them. It's a red herring.

Ignore the stuff about kiddie porn. It's another one.

Photographer Joe sells packages of pictures of "Belinda", a college girl who's an erotic model to put her way thru medical school. She uses a stage name because she doesn't want her parents to know.

Bob, Sam, and Jenny each have websites. They purchase the "Belinda" packages and post them.

Under this new interpretation. Bob, Sam, and Jenny must each have full paperwork including "Belinda's" real name, any aliases, who SS#, Birth info.. for EVERY picture of her they post.

Joe already has the paperwork, as he's the producer of the material.

Bob, Sam, and Jenny also must keep the paper records for EVERY picture in a segregated space on their properity, that is available to DOJ representatives at almost any time...and durring those times, the DOJ reps can search the locations as they wish for any illeagal activity.

Bob and Jenny are just running the sites from their home to make some extra money. They can't afford a segregated records area and the extra costs of all the extra record keeping and overhead, so they close down. Sam has the space, but his buddies like to come over to play poker, and unliscensed gambling is illegal there, so he shuts down to.

Joe no longer has anyone to sell his photo's to, so he closes up shop. "Belinda" didn't want her real name available to everyone on the planet, but she's now out of a job anyway and has to quit school.

So 5 people, none of whom were breaking the law..all who were performing actions protected by the first ammendment...are now out of work.

Who said there's no chilling effect?

We'll go one bit farther...

"Belinda"'s boyfriend Ron posts one of her erotic pictures on his LiveJournal.

He's listed in Eric's Friend's Page, so the picture shows up there, as well.

Livejournal, Ron and Eric (and everyone else who has Ronas a Friend), need to have the full documentation available as well, cuz if the DOJ comes knocking (though the law says they don't have to knock) it's 10 years for each and every picture.

Oh..and Eric's documentation needs to include EVERY URL that the picture has shown up at.

Under that and a string of prior rulings, there is a presumption that, absent the specific intent of Congress to create a strict liability offense, some form of intent is necessary to convict someone of a Federal felony. In other words, Justice cannot create criminal liability for an unknowing web site host.

I found an article about Traci Lords on Wikipedia.

It did state (whether accurately or not) that even those who did not know Lords age still suffered from legal problems for years.

It sounds like in this case, however, that the DOJ is forcing all sites to become liable, not just the original creator/producer of the content.

I would think for most people, the threat of a criminal case against them is enough to shut them down.

Just like the threat of a criminal case against filesharers has resulted in a healthy number of settlements so far.

PAD sex "The definition of "sexually explicit" material is the exact same that it's been for the past fifteen years"

And what is that?

A distinction is made between nude and sexually explicit.

So a naked woman is not sexually explicit? How about a naked woman holding hands with a naked man. How about a naked woman kissing a naked man?
How about a naked woman kissing the statue of David?

What about a naked woman really enjoying eating a popsicle? How about a fully clothed woman really enjoying eating a popsicle? How about a fully clothed woman sucking on a dildo? How about a fully clothed man sucking on a dildo?

Or is this one of those "I know it when I see it" things?

Peter...do you have the name and full records of the model JK Woodward used for the Fallen Angel cover? --it looks pretty racy to me...good enough to have DOJ check out anyhow. Do you have written proof that no model was used? If you don't, the next New Frontier book is gonna be quiet a bit late.

Interesting discussion. People have talked about Yahoo and message boards, but could this also affect the sale of adult material on Ebay? Say I have a bundle of 10- or 15-year-old crossdressing magazines to sell, so I spread them out on my living room floor and take a photo of them. Since I can't provide age documentation for every person seen on the mags' covers, does that mean my photo would be violating the law?

Well, I'll say again, this law only applies to images of actual sex. And not simulated.

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+986+1++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%282257%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

"Under this new interpretation. Bob, Sam, and Jenny must each have full paperwork including "Belinda's" real name, any aliases, who SS#, Birth info.. for EVERY picture of her they post."

Under the law, yes to real name and aliases and birth date. The law says nothing about SS#, but regulations could add that.

"Bob, Sam, and Jenny also must keep the paper records for EVERY picture in a segregated space on their properity"

Yes, and no. They must keep proper records for every *performer*, not every image. So if they use only one person's image, they only need that person's verification, once. And it doesn't have to be a segregated space...it does have to state where they can be found. "At my place of residence" should suffice. You probably don't need "in the third left drawer in my desk on the west wall of my sitting room."

All this is based on the law...I tried to do a little digging into the regs., but a google on the USC section turned up a bunch of sites that looked like porn sites, and not at all work friendly.

Point being: if Belinda didn't want her name known, she shouldn't have gotten involved in hard porn...there's no way to keep your real identity secret anymore.

If Bob, Sam, and Jenny want to post pics of Belinda, and they bought them, then the package will now include the necessary paperwork, provided by Joe, the seller.

Who says the records have to be paper? Keep them electronically, and print them out when DOJ asks for them. Bob, Sam, and Jenny all have PCs...buy a bigger hard drive if they run out of space.

There's nothing unduly onerous about this application. It's a minute amount of recordkeeping that the business already performs.

And erotic images alone would not be covered, unless they were depictions of actual sexual acts. If Belinda just wants to pose nude for Joe, she doesn't even have to provide Joe with her real name. Heck, Joe can even take her images and use CGI to depict simulated sex, and this law doesn't cover it.

"Say I have a bundle of 10- or 15-year-old crossdressing magazines to sell, so I spread them out on my living room floor and take a photo of them."

GAAAHHHHHH! The law ONLY applies to images of ACTUAL sexual conduct.....

"Keep your money, Wang, I'm going home...."

I'm about to have a rare disagreement with PAD.

By contrast, I was pleased to agree with him on all significant issues for once.

"So a naked woman is not sexually explicit?"

In this context? No. Of course, people in some parts of Georgia would disagree, but that's not what's being discussed.

"How about a naked woman holding hands with a naked man."

No.

"How about a naked woman kissing a naked man?"

No.

"How about a naked woman kissing the statue of David?"

No.

"What about a naked woman really enjoying eating a popsicle?"

No, but now you're making me hot.

"How about a fully clothed woman really enjoying eating a popsicle?"

No.

"How about a fully clothed woman sucking on a dildo?"

No.

"How about a fully clothed man sucking on a dildo?"

No, but thanks, that cooled me right back down.

PAD

I found an article about Traci Lords on Wikipedia. It did state (whether accurately or not) that even those who did not know Lords age still suffered from legal problems for years.

Yes, which is why there was a Supreme Court case on it (cited above). If the people who denied knowledge of her age had not had any legal problems, then the Court would have had nothing to rule on. That point having now been settled, however...

I would think for most people, the threat of a criminal case against them is enough to shut them down. Just like the threat of a criminal case against filesharers has resulted in a healthy number of settlements so far.

I thought that you said that RIAA copyright cases had had no impact on filesharing, and that you predicted this regulation similarly would do nothing to stem child pornography? Frankly I think you're right this time, and that the file-sharing going on now is at least somewhat less than it would have been without the RIAA shark attacks.

"Has it occured to X that this thread is only about 6 hours old, and PAD may not have gotten to read it yet?"
-------------

It's STILL there....

I guess I was right after all.

But I won't hold my breath waiting for you to apologize.

You'll be busy thinking up new excuses.

"GAAAHHHHHH! The law ONLY applies to images of ACTUAL sexual conduct....."

What is that? What defines actual vs simulated? If they love each other? In my earlier example involving the statue of david, when does simulated become actual?

And when your door is kicked down by the DOJ...does it matter? If a court of law eventually says, oh, doesn't apply, it was all simulated...does that repair your reputation? Reopen your business that was forced to close? Return your equipment that was siezed? Give back the time you spent in jail?

"The source of the comments is held in such contempt by this little 'community' that nothing he says can damage or defame me because no one takes what he says about me seriously. PAD"
--------

The haughty Peter David is FAR superior to me!

That's how it works.

If you're superior to someone, you can say anything about them! For example, Peter David is so obviously superior to Bush, he can say BUSH SUCKS in every political post with no problem! It's not libel!

By the way, I am keeping count.

Since Peter David declared he was "donne with me," he has commented on my posts over a dozen times. THAT is how much he doesn't "take me seriously."

But we know Peter David is a liar already, don't we?

A liar who supports flag burning and child porn.

By the way, nothing Peter David says can damage or defame me, because no one takes what he says about anything seriously.

has it occured to X to READ (you know, the thing with the words? Oh, sorry, Thanks to Bush's no child left behind, you don't know how to do that) Mr. David's posts? The ones where he says that he doesn't think this is censorship, AKA (dare I say it) to some extent agreeing with you? or the one where he says that he doesn't think putting it up was a good idea? I would take what I could get, if I were you.

And yes, Peter David IS vastly (nay, infinitely) superior to Bush, by reason of having intelligence. Thank you for finally seeing the light.

X-ray, you are aware your not impressing anyone here. You come off as a retard to wants applause for spilling your pudding all over yourself.
"yaaayy! Pudding! Gourge Bush says I love Pudding! YYYaaayyy!"

Moron...

"Belinda didn't want her name known, she shouldn't have gotten involved in hard porn...there's no way to keep your real identity secret anymore. "

So because of her job choice (again, not braking any laws), she forfits all rights to privacy? What if she works for Mask-sex.com?

"They must keep proper records for every *performer*, not every image"

Not anymore. If the paperwork requiers that the image be attached to it, that means each image.

And it is (if freeinternetpress is to be believed) requiring the actual paper...not electronic records.

(which by the way does nothing to stop a Traci Lords incident where she had legal id with fake info on it.)

In the interest of clarity, here's the definition of sexually explicit conduct, as put forth in 18 U.S.C. Section 2257

(2) ''sexually explicit conduct'' means actual or simulated - (A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (B) bestiality; (C) masturbation; (D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

Your prosecution may vary.

One note: that's U.S. Code as of 01/06/03. I believe some of 2256 has already been struck down as unconstitutional, specifcally the parts about virtual child porn.

"lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person. "

Sounds like naked woman with popsicle counts.

Actually, PAD, I can see how this is a slight form of censorship. I still think it's more harassment then censorship but censorship by degree nonetheless.

Not all sites that will be targeted by this law are steeling porn. The way this reads you can use it to go after most sale sites as well. Yeah, you can, as you said, buy from the source. But why force such a limit on the consumer. It would be like me telling you that, rather then using a retailer or a company like Diamond, you had to buy each of your comics or novels from the company that publishes them. You can enjoy either the thrill of burning up lots of gas by having to go to the publisher's store or shell out lots of extra $$$$ to pay full shipping on ten orders rather then one bulk fee for one order. Either way you're spending more in hassle costs and less on product. You and everyone else may even have to cut back in purchases and hurt the company's bottom line. Is this the truest form of censorship? No. But it may border the country a bit if it's designed to harass companies into financi