The Case for Porn

jaykrue

jaykrue

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
Something strange is afoot. Recently a law was passed under the perview of obscenity against children. It's a law requiring that ALL websites depicting images of an adult nature MUST provide legal documentation/verification of the participants' ages. What does this have to do with CAG? Well, that's the thing. It's vague and broad in definition. It's not clearly spelled out what constitutes what a image of an adult nature - it could be anything from a bikini Maxim-style pic to a full-blown pr0n image. That said, this would have legal ramifications for CAG. Any images that are displayed in the forum for all to see will hold Cheapy accountable for its content - disregarding the fact that he didn't post/had knowledge of the pic. And it's prosecutable with jailtime. Although I applaud the intent in which this law is ideally targeted, many innocent website operators will unnecessarily be under the gun/scrutiny of a very stupid stupid law.

See USC Title 18 Section 2257
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']When will they start arresting owners of medical websites for having naked pictures of prepubescent children?[/QUOTE]

Well, the law is supposed to take effect tomorrow but I think websites will have a one month probationary period to be 2257 compliant. If you're operating an open forum such as this in which pics of whose origin you don't know about, you're going to have to find ALL of the information about the people in those pics. This is virtually impossible. The only way to comply is to reformat the server - and lose everyone's pics (avatars and sigs) and start anew to cover whatever you couldn't find or close the site down. Even moving off-shore doesn't guarantee protection. If you're doing business in the US, you could still be held liable. I posted this so Cheapy will scan this to make sure he's covered all his bases because I don't want CAG to get shut down for a stupid reason (which is what this law is). After reading further, the miniscule silver lining in this is that only real life images are held liable - cartoons and renderings are ok (for now).
 
They can't do anything about cartoons or cg images, if I remember correctly the supreme court already ruled that they did not fall under the same category as real images.
 
jaykrue, thanks for bringing this up. I posted a link to this thread in the Mods' forum, so we'll all be in the know about it.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']They can't do anything about cartoons or cg images, if I remember correctly the supreme court already ruled that they did not fall under the same category as real images.[/QUOTE]

How would you vertify the age of a CG porn image? :lol:
 
Well it seems to state "sexually explicit" in about every description of the images, I doubt that includes or have I ever known it to include "maxim-style bikini pics", which also I don't think fall under legal obscenities either.
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']Thats not so great for the "CAG Pedophiliacs thread" someone around here....[/QUOTE]

Not really, none of the pics show the girls in a sexually explicit shot. The closest would be the overdeveloped 11 yr old in a bikini but that would fall under Maxim-style bikini shot. Tasteless but still legit.

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Well it seems to state "sexually explicit" in about every description of the images, I doubt that includes or have I ever known it to include "maxim-style bikini pics", which also I don't think fall under legal obscenities either.[/QUOTE]

Could you please point it out? I must've missed it when I was scanning it. And I was under the impression that it wasn't just blatant images of people having sex. I thought sexually suggestive material was covered as well.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Not really, none of the pics show the girls in a sexually explicit shot. The closest would be the overdeveloped 11 yr old in a bikini but that would fall under Maxim-style bikini shot. Tasteless but still legit..[/QUOTE]

Tasteless? Don't you mean tasty? ;)
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Shhhh... they're not supposed to know! ;)[/QUOTE]

The other thread is *right there*. :lol:

*s meant to imply a hand motion in the direction of that thread.
 
[quote name='camoor']Is the female body still a work of art?

Or is legally considered a sin now?[/QUOTE]

If the fundies have their way, it will probably legal soon enough, I'm afraid.
 
She has breasts! that 8 years in jail!

....I'm confused. Is this saying that you need to have a copy of the ID of the person in the picture? Where? On hand? Next to the picture? Or does the person looking at the picture need to have ID?

Are they saying that in order to host a picture of a sexual nature on the internet you need to have legal photographic proof of the age of the person(s) in the photo?

What kind of bullshit is that? Either they have no idea how impossible this is or they know exactly how impossible it is. Given how puritanical the US is becoming, I wouldn't doubt its an intentional move to 'clense' the nation and restore its 'moral fiber'. :roll:
 
It's supposedly to prevent child pornography. I doubt there is any possible way they would target a site such as CAG with all the various porno sites out there, especially the ones that display young girls that are supposed to be 18 (on some sites those girls are probably 38 with pigtails, on others maybe they're actually 16).
 
Hopefully this is one of those laws that won't be enforced unless there is a suspected problem. For example, a site has accusations lodged against it that it is portraying naked underage girls.
 
The government has always been more interested in catching someone with illegal porn than finding the actual abuser and victim (and actually helping them) or shutting down sites that sell that crap. Why do you think the case about the girl abused at Disneyland was recently in the news? They wanted to see if people would go looking for the pics. Strange that they mysteriously found the girl safe and sound in Pennsylvania and the man was already behind bars.
 
[quote name='Kayden'] Either they have no idea how impossible this is or they know exactly how impossible it is. [/QUOTE]

Bingo.
 
[quote name='Kayden']She has breasts! that 8 years in jail!

....I'm confused. Is this saying that you need to have a copy of the ID of the person in the picture? Where? On hand? Next to the picture? Or does the person looking at the picture need to have ID?

Are they saying that in order to host a picture of a sexual nature on the internet you need to have legal photographic proof of the age of the person(s) in the photo?

What kind of bullshit is that? Either they have no idea how impossible this is or they know exactly how impossible it is. Given how puritanical the US is becoming, I wouldn't doubt its an intentional move to 'clense' the nation and restore its 'moral fiber'. :roll:[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily a copy of that person ID - just a copy of some form of identification on hand that verifies that person's age which of course includes driver's license or state ID or birth certificate. It doesn't have to be on the picture itself, just that the website operator has the records on hand - either in his computer or in a manila folder somewhere. I tend to side more with the 'knowing exactly how impossible it is' since this is a ridiculous law which will probably be struck down by the Supreme Courts soon. Unfortunately, in the interim, everyone can still be held liable.

A funny side effect of this is that the law applies to ALL real-life images. This means that if you want to look up the opposite of kiddy pr0n - granny pr0n, you'd still need to have verification of the GILF in question. :lol:

It IS bullshit but it's still the sign of our times...
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Not necessarily a copy of that person ID - just a copy of some form of identification on hand that verifies that person's age which of course includes driver's license or state ID or birth certificate. It doesn't have to be on the picture itself, just that the website operator has the records on hand - either in his computer or in a manila folder somewhere. I tend to side more with the 'knowing exactly how impossible it is' since this is a ridiculous law which will probably be struck down by the Supreme Courts soon. Unfortunately, in the interim, everyone can still be held liable.

A funny side effect of this is that the law applies to ALL real-life images. This means that if you want to look up the opposite of kiddy pr0n - granny pr0n, you'd still need to have verification of the GILF in question. :lol:

It IS bullshit but it's still the sign of our times...[/QUOTE]

I hope never to see or hear the term "GILF" ever again. Ever.
 
Considering just how much porn there is on the interweb, it would be impossible to police. It would be like when the RIAA sues 5 guys out of the hundred million guilty parties.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Considering just how much porn there is on the interweb, it would be impossible to police. It would be like when the RIAA sues 5 guys out of the hundred million guilty parties.[/QUOTE]

That's part of the point. It's been perceived as an attack on the adult industry riding under the coattails of child pornography laws. But it's so broad in definition that it can apply to non-adult associated sites as well. So any fundie nutbag who sees a potential boobie shot on a site about videogames can get the website operator in trouble under the premise of 'protecting the children'.

Fortunately, some temporary relief is in sight. The Free Speech Coalition has gotten the authorities to halt their prosecution of non 2257-compliant websites by September 7th. See here:

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=49359
 
All I am going to say is this is how our hard earned tax dollars are spent on folks - the ghoberment trying to make new laws then justify these laws by going after what would be the smallest fry in a large McDonalds french fry container instead of the real big ones.

Yeah, they'll catch one or two but it will be insignifigant ones they'll catch. Sure it will make the news, and yeah Joe Sixpack will feel better at night about the issue but meanwhile the worst offenders will get by without any hassles (if any).

Child porn is wrong no matter how you slice it, but knowing our problematic ghoberment I just got the feeling that this is going to happen. Sad but true.
 
[quote name='jaykrue']That's part of the point. It's been perceived as an attack on the adult industry riding under the coattails of child pornography laws. But it's so broad in definition that it can apply to non-adult associated sites as well. So any fundie nutbag who sees a potential boobie shot on a site about videogames can get the website operator in trouble under the premise of 'protecting the children'.

Fortunately, some temporary relief is in sight. The Free Speech Coalition has gotten the authorities to halt their prosecution of non 2257-compliant websites by September 7th. See here:

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=49359[/QUOTE]

Luckily any CAG fundies probably have us freedom-lovers on ignore. :D
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Not really, none of the pics show the girls in a sexually explicit shot. The closest would be the overdeveloped 11 yr old in a bikini but that would fall under Maxim-style bikini shot. Tasteless but still legit.

Could you please point it out? I must've missed it when I was scanning it. And I was under the impression that it wasn't just blatant images of people having sex. I thought sexually suggestive material was covered as well.[/QUOTE]

Reading the finalized version on the right:

"A primary producer is any person who actually films,
videotapes, photographs, or creates a digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, a digital image, or picture of, or digitizes an image of, a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct."

"that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct"

In fact, "sexually suggestive" is mentioned no place I saw and "actual sexually explicit conduct" is mentioned many times. Granted sexually explicit may have different definitions, but I've never known the law to see women in a bikini as such and I think it's simply their way of refering to pornography.
 
[quote name='camoor']Luckily any CAG fundies probably have us freedom-lovers on ignore. :D[/QUOTE]

I honestly don't know if that's a good or bad thing.:lol:

It's good since they won't see material that will be objectionable but on the other hand it's bad since the chance to debate the material's merits will not take place.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']They can't do anything about cartoons or cg images, if I remember correctly the supreme court already ruled that they did not fall under the same category as real images.[/QUOTE]

Oh boy, that means my Furry pr0n is safe. :D
 
Yeah, if this does become an issue I expect there will be a HUGE explosion of CG and hentai (at least more huge than what it is now).
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Yeah, if this does become an issue I expect there will be a HUGE explosion of CG and hentai (at least more huge than what it is now).[/QUOTE]

That will be very bad for a great lot of you, and very, very good for a select few...
 
[quote name='camoor']That will be very bad for a great lot of you, and very, very good for a select few...[/QUOTE]

Which do you fall under? ;)

Hentai is fine with me. I could care less either way. At least in hentai there are no issues like this.
 
There used to be a great hentai (well a normal site and a hentai section) site, but I can't remember it exactly. It was something like aoi.sakura. or aoi.sakurba., that's the only part I have any idea of. If someone knows that site can you pm me or something? I used to have it bookmarked but I lost all my bookmarks.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']There used to be a great hentai (well a normal site and a hentai section) site, but I can't remember it exactly. It was something like aoi.sakura. or aoi.sakurba., that's the only part I have any idea of. If someone knows that site can you pm me or something? I used to have it bookmarked but I lost all my bookmarks.[/QUOTE]

I found a few random hentai sites with google but nothing like you described.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I found a few random hentai sites with google but nothing like you described.[/QUOTE]

Damn, it had tons of really nice cat girls too.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Damn, it had tons of really nice cat girls too.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm...does Sea Lounge Garden sound like it?
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Hmmm...does Sea Lounge Garden sound like it?[/QUOTE]


YA, THAT'S IT! The address starts off as aoi.sakura, that's what I was looking for. Thanks.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']fucking perverts. :shame: :lol:[/QUOTE]

Hehehe, Dr. Kettle paging Dr. Pot! Paging Dr. Pot! He's come to tell you that you look black.:lol:
 
[quote name='jaykrue']Hehehe, Dr. Kettle paging Dr. Pot! Paging Dr. Pot! He's come to tell you that you look black.:lol:[/QUOTE]

2 seconds later I googled Sea Lounge Garden. :lol:
 
Hard to read through that text but it seems that unless you are:

A primary producer is any person who actually films, videotapes, photographs, or creates a computer-generated image, digital image, or picture of, or digitizes an image of, a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct.


one shouldn't worry.
 
[quote name='Mr.Answer']Hard to read through that text but it seems that unless you are:

A primary producer is any person who actually films, videotapes, photographs, or creates a computer-generated image, digital image, or picture of, or digitizes an image of, a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct.


one shouldn't worry.[/QUOTE]

I think the majority of people here already have more porn than they could ever use in one lifetime anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top