US rules all porn is child porn

[Jariel]

All pornography in the US is now effectively classified as child pornography, unless providers can prove the ages of everyone taking part.

The law, which requires porn producers to hold copies of all actors' photo ID for seven years, has been in place for some time, but as of 23 June, the rule was extended to cover online pornography as well. This includes online forums, adult personals sites and any other place where adult material may be published.

In response, a number of sites have voluntarily taken themselves offline, to avoid breaking the newly applied rules. According to BoingBoing, Rotten.com has taken down ratemyboner.com and gapingmaw.com, which contained the occasional explicit image, although it is/was not a porn site, as such.

In a statement on the site, gapingmaw.com's administrators call the law a "side-handed attack on the pornography industry", and says that it would be impossible for it to meet the requirements of the regulations.

While the law is designed to protect minors, and prevent exploitation, some free speech campaigners argue that the law gives authorities an awful lot of power to close down site they don't approve of, even if that was not its original goal. They point out that the Patriot Act was used to prosecute people for offenses that were not terrorist offenses shortly after it became law.

The Free Speech Coalition is already preparing a legal challenge to the law, and says it has already won some concessions from the government.

Meanwhile, others still warn that the law could even leave some performers, such as women operating webcam shows from their homes, open to stalking and harassment, because the law requires that they publish their physical addresses online.

 

[Jariel]

It's one hell of a bold move by the government, but for the first time ever, they get my thumbs up!

I don't watch porn so my life is unaffected, but it's reassuring to know that someone is finally doing something to control the porn epidemic, the abuse, exploitation, pimping and underground networks etc. Let's face it, if what they are doing is legal, they should have no problem producing the identities and everyone can rest assured fewer people are being exploited.

No doubt there will be a load of backlash (mostly from perverts posing as freedom protestors) and it will be very interesting to see how it's handled.

Any opinions?

(Just remember, NO POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS!)

 

[Skel]

Im glad they are doing this too. AS you said if they are doing nothing illegal then it should be no problem for them to provide proof.

 

[familyguyfan]

Originally posted by Jariel
It's one hell of a bold move by the government, but for the first time ever, they get my thumbs up!

I don't watch porn so my life is unaffected, but it's reassuring to know that someone is finally doing something to control the porn epidemic, the abuse, exploitation, pimping and underground networks etc. Let's face it, if what they are doing is legal, they should have no problem producing the identities and everyone can rest assured fewer people are being exploited.

No doubt there will be a load of backlash (mostly from perverts posing as freedom protestors) and it will be very interesting to see how it's handled.

Any opinions?

(Just remember, NO POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS!)

Did you read the whole article? The bottom paragraph is a perfect example of the problems invovled.

I'm not saying that they don't need to take measures against child pornography, there are just probably easier and more practical ways to go about it. The idea is in the right place, but it seems kind of restricting to some. However, that article doesn't provide a whole lot of info, so I could be wrong.

 

[undesputable]

if there is so much porn around is because women as a whole dont fulfill their duty...especially once you get into marriage.

 

[Skel]

well it only makes sense. Why cant or why shouldnt these porno sites provide proof of age? This to me is a no brainer.

Anyways what is the law for age of girls who can take nude pics?
Also does it matter what state for internet?
What about a different country?

 

[spider_007]

I wonder how that is gona work. If somebody gets busted with porn on their computer, adn if they can't tell from which site it came from........the guy goes to jail for child porn?????

not like i care or anything

 

[Julian]

Man fvck this law. Anyone who supports it should be repeatedly bludgeoned with a sledgehammer and buried under a truckload of porn consisting of *******, scat and anal pummeling the likes of which perverts around the word have never seen.


Btw this "expoitation" mindstate is complete bull**** and afc.

How are they being exploited? Women like porn and they want money and get paid well. i dont see the exploitation.

DIE!

 

[Jariel]

Originally posted by Julian
How are they being exploited? Women like porn and they want money and get paid well. i dont see the exploitation.

Well, if they're consenting adults they should have no problem proving their age and identity. This law just makes it safer for the women (and men) involved.

At the end of the day, the only people losing out by this law are the people who are upto no good.

As for the end part of the article about webcam girls attracting stalkers, nobody is forcing them to broadcast a webcam from their home.

 

[MetalFortress]

*looks at the last paragraph*

FINALLY, an end to stupid camwh0res!

 

[hardwork]

Originally posted by familyguyfan
However, that article doesn't provide a whole lot of info, so I could be wrong.

The full article has more information.

 

[Alpine]

So lets say you want to sign up with an online dating site, you would have to prove you are 18 with documentation would you to put a pic up?

 

[Axe]

Originally posted by Skel
Im glad they are doing this too. AS you said if they are doing nothing illegal then it should be no problem for them to provide proof.

How about every morning, a cop pulls up to your door and makes you piss in a cup to prove that you haven't been doing anything illegal then procedes to search your house? After all, if you're not doing "nothing" illegal then it should be no problem for you to provide proof.

Dumbass.

 

[SELF-MASTERY]

How are the producers suppose to provide proof, then how are the consumers suppose to show proof? This will not stand trial.......This law has jury nullification written all over it.

 

[Derek Flint]

"US rules all porn is child porn"

Uh, no.

Just got off the phone with a friend who owns an adult store and has been in the industry (distribution end) for 10 years and this is not what the ruling says.

 

[diablo]

Here's the legislation in question:

2257. Record keeping requirements



(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which—
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;

shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.

(b) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall, with respect to every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct—
(1) ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer’s name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations;
(2) ascertain any name, other than the performer’s present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name; and
(3) record in the records required by subsection (a) the information required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection and such other identifying information as may be prescribed by regulation.

(c) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall maintain the records required by this section at his business premises, or at such other place as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe and shall make such records available to the Attorney General for inspection at all reasonable times.

(d)
(1) No information or evidence obtained from records required to be created or maintained by this section shall, except as provided in this section, directly or indirectly, be used as evidence against any person with respect to any violation of law.
(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not preclude the use of such information or evidence in a prosecution or other action for a violation of this section or for a violation of any applicable provision of law with respect to the furnishing of false information.

(e)
(1) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall cause to be affixed to every copy of any matter described in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section, in such manner and in such form as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe, a statement describing where the records required by this section with respect to all performers depicted in that copy of the matter may be located.
(2) If the person to whom subsection (a) of this section applies is an organization the statement required by this subsection shall include the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization responsible for maintaining the records required by this section.

(f) It shall be unlawful—
(1) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies to fail to create or maintain the records as required by subsections (a) and (c) or by any regulation promulgated under this section;
(2) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies knowingly to make any false entry in or knowingly to fail to make an appropriate entry in, any record required by subsection (b) of this section or any regulation promulgated under this section;
(3) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies knowingly to fail to comply with the provisions of subsection (e) or any regulation promulgated pursuant to that subsection; and
(4) for any person knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer, or offer for sale or transfer, any book, magazine, periodical, film, video, or other matter, produce in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce or which is intended for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, which—
(A) contains one or more visual depictions made after the effective date of this subsection of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
which does not have affixed thereto, in a manner prescribed as set forth in subsection (e)(1), a statement describing where the records required by this section may be located, but such person shall have no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of the statement or the records required to be kept.
(g) The Attorney General shall issue appropriate regulations to carry out this section.
(h) As used in this section—
(1) the term “actual sexually explicit conduct” means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;
(2) “identification document” has the meaning given that term in section 1028 (d) of this title;
(3) the term “produces” means to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted; and
(4) the term “performer” includes any person portrayed in a visual depiction engaging in, or assisting another person to engage in, actual sexually explicit conduct.

(i) Whoever violates this section shall be imprisoned for not more than 2 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both. Whoever violates this section after having been convicted of a violation punishable under this section shall be imprisoned for any period of years not more than 5 years but not less than 2 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html

However, there are only 2 websites out there which are making this claim - the original one not even being American.

http://www.google.com/search?biw=995&hl=en&q=all+porn+child

www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/24/us_law_2257/ (since we all know how non-alarmist theregister is)
www.threadwatch.org/node/2974 (who reported what theregister wrote, nothing more, nothing less)

 

[Skel]

Originally posted by Axe
How about every morning, a cop pulls up to your door and makes you piss in a cup to prove that you haven't been doing anything illegal then procedes to search your house? After all, if you're not doing "nothing" illegal then it should be no problem for you to provide proof.

Dumbass.

That has to be the lamest argument I have heard in some time. Fortunately Im an adult and I have no need to argue with children.

 

[Jariel]

Diablo is right. The only articles I've found refer back to The Register.

If a law like this has been passed, I would expect it to get a lot more press, yet it does seem to be true as a google search for "2257" shows that various adult sites are starting to obey this legislation. I.e.

http://www.redlightcenter.com/
http://www.danyalicious.com/
http://www.dominantprincess.net/

These pages have a statement referring to the 2257. record keeping legislation.

As the legislation states, it doesn't apply to simulated sexual acts.

 

[diablo]

Originally posted by Jariel
If a law like this has been passed, I would expect it to get a lot more press, yet it does seem to be true as a google search for "2257" shows that various adult sites are starting to obey this legislation. I.e.

The law in question was passed years ago. Any news it caused is long since over - like it says, all producers of adult material (as defined by the bill) have had to keep records of age of their performers ever since November 1, 1990. That's nearly 15 years back... not exactly headline news anymore. Now, if you can find some current mainstream, American newspapers (CNN, FOX News, CBS, Wall Street Journal, NY Times, etc) that run this story then I'll give it more credibility. As of now, I think it's mainly alarmist BS that a newspaper editer ran for shock value, deliberately misinterpreting what a bill said. Yellow journalism.

 

[Bonhomme]

:yawn:
If they all of a sudden decide to enforce this, expect it to have the same sort of sweeping long-term affect as the "can spam" act.